The Fora: A Higher Education Community

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: bacardiandlime on January 30, 2020, 03:20:28 PM

Title: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on January 30, 2020, 03:20:28 PM
Any scientists here willing to give the ELI5 version of what's going on/likely to happen?
On social media I'm seeing conspiracy theorists swarming around (there are medical research labs in Wuhan! This is an excaped bioweapon!), general doomsayers etc.
I'd be interested to get some balanced insight.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hibush on January 30, 2020, 03:35:42 PM
A new type of flu virus in on the loose
It is spreading fast
Wash your hands often
Don't go to China right now

New viruses show up regularly, and it is important to stop the spread as soon as possible and to develop vaccines against them. Those things area ll happening. New viruses take a lot of work to figure out.

These viruses often come from wild animals when some unusual contact allows the transmission between species. There are markets in southern China that carry live wild animals as well as a lot of domestic animals. If you wanted to set up the petri dish that would best allow an unusual transfer, that is pretty much the environment you'd want to create.

Interestingly the Chinese government is taking an unusual step in trying to stop these markets, which have been illegal for a while. They have enlisted a pop start to make a public service announcement, saying something along the lines of, "You dumb****, eating monkey testicles isn't going to give you boners." Some frank public health official apparently got ahead of the censors.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on January 30, 2020, 03:39:59 PM
I agree with Hibush. I will also add to go get your flu shot if you haven't already. No it won't protect you from Corona virus, but it might protect you from the flu which kills many times more people each year. Right now the epidemiology estimates are that flu and Corona viruses spread at about the same rate. Too early yet to get a solid read on the lethality, but it's probably about the same as flu.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on January 31, 2020, 04:39:57 AM
Last year there were 30,000-40,000 deaths by firearm in the USA. Current coronavirus fatalities number approximately 200. In the USA people are 8-9 times more likely to be the victim of an intentional homicide than in China. You're safer in China.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on January 31, 2020, 05:24:02 AM
Travel warnings for all of China also seem exaggerated to me. The distance between Wuhan and Beijing is roughly the same as between New York and Chicago. When there's a measles outbreak in New York, you probably wouldn't avoid travel to Chicago.

But it's harder to sell advertising on "don't panic!" articles. So here we are. Doesn't minimize the need for a concerted medical response, but it's not really something the rest of us need to think about.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hibush on January 31, 2020, 05:53:28 AM
Quote from: pigou on January 31, 2020, 05:24:02 AM
Travel warnings for all of China also seem exaggerated to me. The distance between Wuhan and Beijing is roughly the same as between New York and Chicago. When there's a measles outbreak in New York, you probably wouldn't avoid travel to Chicago.

The virus travels on people, and the amount of travel between the two cities is considerable (e.g. six nonstop flights, five direct high-speed trains each direction daily.) That's why the concern. The travel estimate for all of China was that 400 milllion people would travel to a different city during the present New Year holiday. The internal travel restrictions have cut that number down, but movement is still considerable.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on January 31, 2020, 08:33:25 AM
Yes, and every traveler in a plane with one infected person becomes a potential germ vector wherever they go.

Especially among family members and friends who are going to towns where more family members and friends (who can be quite casual about infection avoidance) live.

Contaigion is like that...

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on January 31, 2020, 09:00:19 AM
1.  Death rate appears to be quite low.  Lots of sick people, but no that many deaths so far.  Biggest risk in the elderly, those with respiratory problems or other underlying illness.

2.  Corona viruses also cause many kinds of common cold.  Corona viruses are not unusual, but this one appears to be a mutated version that jumped from animals (some are thinking snakes) to humans.

3.  Not clear yet how infectious it is.  Measles has an Ro of 12-18.  Every person infected with measles infects a further 12-18 people so massive outbreaks are a real issue.  Any Ro of > 2 implies logarithmic growth of the infected population.  Not clear yet what this risk is for corona, so until better numbers are available, quarantine is a reasonable public health measure.

4.  No reason to panic.  Lots of things kill lots more people than Wuhan corona.  Wash your hands, cover your cough.

5.  Stay off social media.  It causes brain damage far more often than corona causes respiratory infections.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 31, 2020, 09:11:25 AM
Looks like a periodic news cycle-driven panic to me. The most interesting thing about it is the quarantining of entire cities.

I'll start paying attention when healthy young people are dying in droves. But mortality rates far below those of the common flu aren't going to get any special attention from me.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Liquidambar on January 31, 2020, 10:57:12 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 31, 2020, 09:00:19 AM
3.  Not clear yet how infectious it is.  Measles has an Ro of 12-18.  Every person infected with measles infects a further 12-18 people so massive outbreaks are a real issue.  Any Ro of > 2 implies logarithmic growth of the infected population.  Not clear yet what this risk is for corona, so until better numbers are available, quarantine is a reasonable public health measure.

Actually, any R_0 of >1 should cause growth (not just >2).  Also, the growth should be initially exponential, but it saturates as susceptible individuals are depleted.

The simple models assume fixed R_0, though.  In reality, changes in people's behavior (such as self-isolation, washing hands more frequently, etc.) can cause a reduction in R_0 over time.  That's what happened with previous Ebola outbreaks, for example--people's behavior changed, so the rate of spreading dwindled.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Aster on January 31, 2020, 11:29:40 AM
I remember all of the panic in the U.S. from H1N1.

If the coronavirus had just showed up 3 years earlier, Big Urban College would have kept all of the portable hand sanitizer stations that we (and many other U.S. universities) invested a lot of money on back in 2009 for H1N1.

But we threw all of that equipment away. I wonder if we will have to buy that stuff all over again.

I read earlier this week that some U.S. cities (Los Angeles, New York) were experiencing critical supply shortages of facemasks. People are buying them all up and stockpiling them.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on January 31, 2020, 04:55:33 PM
My concern is about the under reporting of the cases.  within the last 2 days I read an online article about a women that visited her parents over the Chinese New Year holiday in the prime city.  She and her father came down with something but the clinic would not test them for the coronavirus.  She indicated that there are 4 different tests and until the final test confirms it, they dont report it, but they were not given the last test so she was not added to the infected count. 

I am concerned that there are a lot of people that are in the same boat.  Not confirmed because the final test results are not in so there is an undercount.

Also in the news were reports of a new 1000 bed hospital to be ready in 10 days! This was first hitting the news when the official count was less than 3000 people!  Now if I remember the news, there are 1000 bed hospitals being built in 3 different cities. 

Why would you start something like that if the infections are still relatively low?  Also, IF the fatality rate is lower than SARS (which was reported to be about 10%) then why build, in 10 days, 3 hospitals?  Send most of the people home and wait out the illness!

In all, I think that there is more to be learned from this, and while I have grown skeptical of my OWN government, I absolutely Distrust  the  Chinese government!! 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on February 01, 2020, 05:16:46 AM
Quote from: clean on January 31, 2020, 04:55:33 PM
My concern is about the under reporting of the cases.  within the last 2 days I read an online article about a women that visited her parents over the Chinese New Year holiday in the prime city.  She and her father came down with something but the clinic would not test them for the coronavirus.  She indicated that there are 4 different tests and until the final test confirms it, they dont report it, but they were not given the last test so she was not added to the infected count. 

I am concerned that there are a lot of people that are in the same boat.  Not confirmed because the final test results are not in so there is an undercount.

Also in the news were reports of a new 1000 bed hospital to be ready in 10 days! This was first hitting the news when the official count was less than 3000 people!  Now if I remember the news, there are 1000 bed hospitals being built in 3 different cities. 

Why would you start something like that if the infections are still relatively low?  Also, IF the fatality rate is lower than SARS (which was reported to be about 10%) then why build, in 10 days, 3 hospitals?  Send most of the people home and wait out the illness!

In all, I think that there is more to be learned from this, and while I have grown skeptical of my OWN government, I absolutely Distrust  the  Chinese government!!

My understanding is that it goes both ways though. There are almost certainly more people who have this than the official count, but by the same token, that probably means that the mortality rate is lower than the official numbers too. Also am I right in thinking that it is possible there are lots of people who have pretty mild symptoms and thus would never even go to a hospital or doctor?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on February 01, 2020, 09:05:59 AM
Quote from: clean on January 31, 2020, 04:55:33 PM
Also in the news were reports of a new 1000 bed hospital to be ready in 10 days! This was first hitting the news when the official count was less than 3000 people!  Now if I remember the news, there are 1000 bed hospitals being built in 3 different cities. 

Why would you start something like that if the infections are still relatively low?  Also, IF the fatality rate is lower than SARS (which was reported to be about 10%) then why build, in 10 days, 3 hospitals?  Send most of the people home and wait out the illness!
I think this is China trying to show that they are able to deal with an outbreak and not wanting to be blamed for not having done enough. So much is really just about appearance, not about actual medical necessity. Also, it's a potentially useful "test run" for how to quickly establish medical facilities when (not if) there is a more serious virus outbreak.

I think it's also worth pausing to acknowledge how amazing an achievement it is to build 3 hospitals in 10 days. Yes, they're super temporary facilities and I'm sure they're not up to any building codes. But imagine you could do this cheaply in the rural US where so many people simply live too far from hospitals to get needed medical care. Who cares if it gets knocked down when a tornado hits: that's not when you'd be providing routine medical care anyway and you could have it standing again in a matter of days. There are these makeshift camps already where doctors provide free medical care for a day or two, but they're simply not able to offer anything beyond a check-up and prescriptions (you can't do surgery in a high school gym). (This would go into a healthcare thread, but it's still worth noting that the people who get help generally do have Medicaid -- so no deductible and a copay, if any, of less than $5. They just don't have physical access to doctors.)


What worries me most about this virus is that it's really fueling already existing xenophobia. An Uber driver yesterday told me he wishes he could decline all Chinese passengers. We also see economic damage as a result of the response (not the virus): halting flights is going to dampen business investments and reduce trade. Non-citizens who have been to China in the past 2 weeks are refused entry into the US, with US citizens facing mandatory quarantining. It's this sort of stuff that's much worse than whatever the fallout from the virus will end up being.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on February 01, 2020, 01:14:14 PM
here is the article I mentioned

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/asia/chinese-health-care-virus-intl-hnk/index.html
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on February 01, 2020, 02:17:19 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/early-missteps-and-state-secrecy-in-china-probably-allowed-the-coronavirus-to-spread-farther-and-faster/ar-BBZya9o

"nside the quarantine zone. hospitals have openly pleaded on social media for donations of basic equipment like masks and protective suits. Wuhan residents widely report a severe shortage of testing kits, raising the possibility that the true number of cases are far greater than the confirmed figures released by officials."

"After city hospitals were overwhelmed by patients who sought coronavirus tests, local authorities this week announced hospitals would only give tests to those who showed severe symptoms and obtained a referral from smaller neighborhood clinics."


I fear that this is far more widespread and perhaps that the death rate is well under reported.  Im not thinking that this will become another Spanish Flu sort of thing, but it is something to monitor and I wonder how one CAN monitor it when the Chinese government has been doing everything it can to suppress information.

"Person-to-person spread occurred as early as mid-December, and cases were doubling every seven days.

Yet in Wuhan, local cadres were focused on a days-long Communist Party conclave that was scheduled to run from Jan. 11 to Jan. 17. During that time, the Wuhan Health Commission each day claimed there were no new infections or deaths."

"Medical professionals who tried to sound an alarm were seized by police. Key state media omitted mention of the outbreak for weeks. Cadres focused on maintaining stability — and praising party leader Xi Jinping — as the crisis worsened.

"China's public health system has modernized, but China's political system hasn't," said Jude Blanchette, head of China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "If anything, there's been a regression."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: polly_mer on February 02, 2020, 06:32:51 AM
I live in a community that has a lot of international travel for work including China, we went to a school open house on Wednesday, and now I have a severe cold for which I called in sick to work on Friday.

If I don't make it, then it's been nice knowing you all.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on February 02, 2020, 08:03:14 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 02, 2020, 06:32:51 AM
I live in a community that has a lot of international travel for work including China, we went to a school open house on Wednesday, and now I have a severe cold for which I called in sick to work on Friday.

If I don't make it, then it's been nice knowing you all.

Can I have your stereo?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on February 02, 2020, 02:15:06 PM
https://www.theblaze.com/news/new-science-model-finds-coronavirus-numbers-significantly-too-low-disease-will-double-in-size-in-less-than-a-week


"
The shocking results of the study, which was performed by experts at the University of Hong Kong, found that as of Jan. 25, more than 75,000 people in Wuhan had likely already contracted the disease, a number nearly 100 times greater than what the official record stated. At the time, there were just 761 reported confirmations of the disease in the Wuhan area.

Even more alarming is the fact that the disease doubles in the number of infections every 6.4 days, the experts found.
"
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: polly_mer on February 02, 2020, 02:36:46 PM
Quote from: Anselm on February 02, 2020, 08:03:14 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 02, 2020, 06:32:51 AM
I live in a community that has a lot of international travel for work including China, we went to a school open house on Wednesday, and now I have a severe cold for which I called in sick to work on Friday.

If I don't make it, then it's been nice knowing you all.

Can I have your stereo?

I'll put you in the will now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Wahoo Redux on February 02, 2020, 06:11:36 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 02, 2020, 02:36:46 PM
Quote from: Anselm on February 02, 2020, 08:03:14 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 02, 2020, 06:32:51 AM
I live in a community that has a lot of international travel for work including China, we went to a school open house on Wednesday, and now I have a severe cold for which I called in sick to work on Friday.

If I don't make it, then it's been nice knowing you all.

Can I have your stereo?

I'll put you in the will now.

Polly, I completely believe you are waaaaaaay too tough for any stupid virus.  I actually feel sorry for the coronavirus that messes with you.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: polly_mer on February 02, 2020, 07:15:33 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 02, 2020, 06:11:36 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 02, 2020, 02:36:46 PM
Quote from: Anselm on February 02, 2020, 08:03:14 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 02, 2020, 06:32:51 AM
I live in a community that has a lot of international travel for work including China, we went to a school open house on Wednesday, and now I have a severe cold for which I called in sick to work on Friday.

If I don't make it, then it's been nice knowing you all.

Can I have your stereo?

I'll put you in the will now.

Polly, I completely believe you are waaaaaaay too tough for any stupid virus.  I actually feel sorry for the coronavirus that messes with you.

The new bookshelves are yours, Wahoo, if I don't make it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Wahoo Redux on February 02, 2020, 07:41:10 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 02, 2020, 07:15:33 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 02, 2020, 06:11:36 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 02, 2020, 02:36:46 PM
Quote from: Anselm on February 02, 2020, 08:03:14 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 02, 2020, 06:32:51 AM
I live in a community that has a lot of international travel for work including China, we went to a school open house on Wednesday, and now I have a severe cold for which I called in sick to work on Friday.

If I don't make it, then it's been nice knowing you all.

Can I have your stereo?

I'll put you in the will now.

Polly, I completely believe you are waaaaaaay too tough for any stupid virus.  I actually feel sorry for the coronavirus that messes with you.

The new bookshelves are yours, Wahoo, if I don't make it.

Ha!  Polly, you are going to be slugging back home-brewed brewskies long after the rest of us are being used as fertilizer in the fields of the next dominant species, which will be puffins, of course.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mahagonny on February 02, 2020, 07:58:27 PM
https://pollysbrew.co
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ex_mo on February 03, 2020, 11:22:18 AM
Quote from: clean on February 02, 2020, 02:15:06 PM
https://www.theblaze.com/news/new-science-model-finds-coronavirus-numbers-significantly-too-low-disease-will-double-in-size-in-less-than-a-week


"
The shocking results of the study, which was performed by experts at the University of Hong Kong, found that as of Jan. 25, more than 75,000 people in Wuhan had likely already contracted the disease, a number nearly 100 times greater than what the official record stated. At the time, there were just 761 reported confirmations of the disease in the Wuhan area.

Even more alarming is the fact that the disease doubles in the number of infections every 6.4 days, the experts found.
"

The Blaze? Really?

I wouldn't trust any information from that website.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Wahoo Redux on February 03, 2020, 11:42:07 AM
Quote from: ex_mo on February 03, 2020, 11:22:18 AM
Quote from: clean on February 02, 2020, 02:15:06 PM
https://www.theblaze.com/news/new-science-model-finds-coronavirus-numbers-significantly-too-low-disease-will-double-in-size-in-less-than-a-week


"
The shocking results of the study, which was performed by experts at the University of Hong Kong, found that as of Jan. 25, more than 75,000 people in Wuhan had likely already contracted the disease, a number nearly 100 times greater than what the official record stated. At the time, there were just 761 reported confirmations of the disease in the Wuhan area.

Even more alarming is the fact that the disease doubles in the number of infections every 6.4 days, the experts found.
"

The Blaze? Really?

I wouldn't trust any information from that website.

Well, here is the paper (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30260-9/fulltext#articleInformation) the Blaze article initially references. 

And here is the Business Insider (https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-75k-infected-doubling-every-64-days-lancet-says-2020-1) article The Blaze also references.

Come on biologists and statisticians, do your thing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on February 03, 2020, 01:06:06 PM
I was at an infectious disease conference over the weekend. The keynote speaker was the head of one our the nations regional special pathogens unit and was scheduled to talk about "Emerging zoonotic viruses". So it was a packed house. He spent a lot of time discussing bats. Just stay away from bats, as they are amazing disease vectors. He also said that the epidemiologists have gotten really good at mathematical modelling of how these diseases play out. As of Saturday, his best guess was that this would not become a pandemic. Now, as of this morning, the NY Times disagrees with him.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/02/health/coronavirus-pandemic-china.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/02/health/coronavirus-pandemic-china.html)

But the NYTimes makes a VERY good point about this spreading the Africa as opposed to Europe or N. America, where everyone is on high alert at the first sniffle. And 2 continents officially constitutes a pandemic. It is WELL known and has been for years that China under reports all infectious diseases (HIV is a huge taboo there). So I'm guessing the math modelling folks have that taken into account. Until we start seeing significant spread of cases in the US from non-travelers I really wouldn't worry too much.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on February 03, 2020, 02:28:21 PM
My wife and I discuss bat soup periodically. Ebola outbreak in 2014, for example.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on February 04, 2020, 04:13:34 PM
Apparently 492 dead?
There was a paper in the Lancet predicting that the actual number infected more like 150,000...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on February 04, 2020, 06:58:49 PM
I wonder if there is a Mexican brewery somewhere hoping desperately somebody discovers the new Bud Light Virus.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on February 05, 2020, 10:35:53 PM
Quote from: spork on February 03, 2020, 02:28:21 PM
My wife and I discuss bat soup periodically. Ebola outbreak in 2014, for example.

While there are a a few dishes, including European ones, more disgusting than raw bat soup, such as casu marzu (illegal in the only place where anyone wants to eat it) or surströmming (eating it can get you legally evicted in Germany), raw bat soup is hard to beat in terms of how dangerous it is. The worst case scenario isn't catching Wuhan coronavirus, the worst case scenario is catching rabies.

Of course China is underreporting, but what about other countries? China jailed doctors who tried to sound off the alarm, but North Korea would've executed them. If it's become an epidemic in North Korea, we wouldn't know about it. What about cover-ups and/or failures to detect it in the Russian Far East? The danger of it speading to Africa, where China has a substantial presence, has been mentioned, but what about Latin America? The region may be overall more prosperous, but Venezuela doesn't have a functioning healthcare system and China has a presence there. Venezuela is somewhat protected by summer, but Central America has several failed states/provinces and it's winter, sort of. Overall things may not be as dire in Mexico but the healthcare system has severe challenges and there are places where the State has failed. Also, a number of countries like Peru, Mexico and Bolivia have cool highlands where the weather really wouldn't help.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on February 06, 2020, 04:33:38 AM
Quote from: spork on February 03, 2020, 02:28:21 PM
My wife and I discuss bat soup periodically. Ebola outbreak in 2014, for example.

That wasn't how the outbreak started. Probably it was a bat bite.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on February 06, 2020, 04:38:39 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on February 05, 2020, 10:35:53 PM
Quote from: spork on February 03, 2020, 02:28:21 PM
My wife and I discuss bat soup periodically. Ebola outbreak in 2014, for example.

While there are a a few dishes, including European ones, more disgusting than raw bat soup, such as casu marzu (illegal in the only place where anyone wants to eat it) or surströmming (eating it can get you legally evicted in Germany), raw bat soup is hard to beat in terms of how dangerous it is. The worst case scenario isn't catching Wuhan coronavirus, the worst case scenario is catching rabies.



Great, but as it turns out

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus-bat-soup

bat soup is not really a thing in China, eating bats is not a likely cause of the disease, and the whole thing is based on racist ideas. So, how about we not spread around baseless radicalized rumors?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: polly_mer on February 06, 2020, 05:20:06 AM
Quote from: Caracal on February 06, 2020, 04:38:39 AM
So, how about we not spread around baseless radicalized rumors?

Great idea! 

Are you ready to lead the way on discussing the real problems in US academia and the realistic solutions or are we still going to go with foolishness by people employed in academia who refuse to read research and policy statements?

I know where my bet lies since I still regularly encounter foolishness on the level of bat soup accusations.

In other events, no one is getting any of my stuff this week and I'm so tired of orange juice that I could scream.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Wahoo Redux on February 06, 2020, 09:01:40 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 06, 2020, 05:20:06 AM
Quote from: Caracal on February 06, 2020, 04:38:39 AM
So, how about we not spread around baseless radicalized rumors?

Great idea! 

Are you ready to lead the way on discussing the real problems in US academia and the realistic solutions or are we still going to go with foolishness by people employed in academia who refuse to read research and policy statements?

I know where my bet lies since I still regularly encounter foolishness on the level of bat soup accusations.

Seems to me that rational discussion leads to rational discussion, or so I've heard.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on February 06, 2020, 09:03:29 AM
No one has said, officially or otherwise, that eating bats was how this was contracted. Bats may have been roosting in the area of the market and contaminated local foodstuffs, or a farmer may have bats on his farm and then come to the market already infected. Or a number of other permutations. We likely will never have a true case zero for this.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on February 06, 2020, 02:11:54 PM
The Wuhan municipal government has been ordered by central authorities to put infected residents in mass concentration camps for quarantine (in other words, in the minds of many in the city, death).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bopper on February 06, 2020, 02:28:38 PM
If you want to read fiction about an epidemic that started from bats... "Wanderers" by Chuck Wendig
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/555273/wanderers-by-chuck-wendig/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on February 06, 2020, 09:19:35 PM
I had planned an Alaska trip with my fiance and my best friend for the end of May.  With the news out of China, my trip mates want out.  The final payment is due this weekend.  We would have an additional 2 weeks for a full refund (until 90 days before the trip date).

However, my friend does not trust the Chinese government news on the number infected or the mortality rate.  I dont blame him for not trusting them!

I think that for my girlfriend/fiance, the dealbreaker was the news about the Diamond Princess off Japan.  They are quarantined for 14 days, and her first thought was that being on a ship for 14 days would not be bad, but then she saw that they were being held in their cabins and food brought to them and no laundry.  I guess that IF she can not eat all the goodies that come with the ship and being stuck in the room only, that it lost its luster!  Of course being stuck in a ship size cabin with others and not necessarily even having clean clothes was just too much to risk!

Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on February 07, 2020, 04:38:03 AM
Don't pay for the trip. Your friends are already flaking out. Reimbursement is a hassle.

Think about a possible future cruise along the coast of West Africa. The bat soup in Conakry was supposedly delicious before the government banned it. It's probably still available in out-of-the-way street markets.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ex_mo on February 07, 2020, 05:22:08 AM
Quote from: bopper on February 06, 2020, 02:28:38 PM
If you want to read fiction about an epidemic that started from bats... "Wanderers" by Chuck Wendig
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/555273/wanderers-by-chuck-wendig/

Or the film Contagion

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1598778/

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on February 07, 2020, 08:01:38 AM
Quote from: clean on February 06, 2020, 09:19:35 PM
I had planned an Alaska trip with my fiance and my best friend for the end of May.  With the news out of China, my trip mates want out.  The final payment is due this weekend.  We would have an additional 2 weeks for a full refund (until 90 days before the trip date).

However, my friend does not trust the Chinese government news on the number infected or the mortality rate.  I dont blame him for not trusting them!

I think that for my girlfriend/fiance, the dealbreaker was the news about the Diamond Princess off Japan.  They are quarantined for 14 days, and her first thought was that being on a ship for 14 days would not be bad, but then she saw that they were being held in their cabins and food brought to them and no laundry.  I guess that IF she can not eat all the goodies that come with the ship and being stuck in the room only, that it lost its luster!  Of course being stuck in a ship size cabin with others and not necessarily even having clean clothes was just too much to risk!

Any thoughts?

This is all pretty irrational. I've had some pretty intense periods of anxiety centering around my health. The one positive of that is that I've had to accept that I actually can't trust my emotional responses, or more importantly, the intellectual scaffolding I tend to build around those emotional responses. At various times I have thought that it was quite likely that I had all kinds of dangerous diseases that were going to kill me and I believed that it was rational for me to think this. In fact, I had none of these things. What I have is anxiety. When I see the ways people react to these highly publicized health scares it is really obvious to me that lots of people also have anxiety that latches on to these things, but they really believe they are just responding appropriately to the situation, instead of letting their anxiety run their lives.

1. I don't really understand why your friends would think a trip to Alaska is dangerous. It might be closer to China geographically, but in terms of global travel, it is more remote, not less.
2. If they're worried about air travel, I don't see how that makes any more sense. Coronavirus isn't spreading in the US at this point, it doesn't actually appear to be being widely transmitted anywhere but China at this point. There's no reason to upend your life to avoid it in an airplane because until that changes it is incredibly unlikely anybody in the airplane is going to have it.
3. Ditto on the cruise ship. People convince themselves they are just being cautious, but caution only makes sense when you are responding to actual dangers, not just ones you can imagine. If there's a severe thunderstorm and I avoid tall trees that might be a perfectly rational response to the situation. If the weather is perfectly pleasant outside and I won't walk under a tree because I'm afraid a gust of wind could come up and the tree might fall on me, that is pretty clearly disordered.

What is happening is that your friends are trying to tell themselves stories that make themselves feel better about their ability to control the world and avoid pain, suffering and death. Saying that you won't go to Alaska because you don't believe the Chinese government is about trying to assert control. If you can properly assess risk and then take some concrete step to avoid, like pointlessly cancelling your vacation, then you can feel like you can mange these things. Of course he can't. It is theoretically possible, you could all get coronavirus in Alaska. It is also possible that you'll die in a car wreck on the way home today, or that a tree will fall on you while you walk across the quad, or that you'll have a heart attack tomorrow. Based on what we know now all of those things are far more likely than you getting coronavirus in Alaska in May.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on February 07, 2020, 09:54:02 AM
Somewhat like this logic (n=1), I nearly cancelled my wonderful, productive, satisfying trip to Europe last month.

There was the treat of a "Named storm" hitting England the week Iwas due to land at Hea5hrow.

The French train strikes were starting, and I worried other countries might go out in sympathy.

I found out one of the libraries I had to visit was going to be unusually closed on the week I'd planned to visit.

Etc.

I went anyway.

I'm glad I did.

I found a workaround for one set of cancelled trains, and discoved thenight-before schedule that made planning possible otherwise.

I flipped two nearby library visits and made it to the one I really had to see the next-to-last day (and got everything there done.)

Etc.

Not on the same level of worry, exactly, but a parallel combination of potential for anxiety and offsetting reasons not to let it be the voice that calls the game...

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on February 08, 2020, 06:35:18 AM
I'm wondering if this thing is more contagious than they're telling us. One person who had travelled to Singapore spread it to the other people in their ski lodge in France. The numbers on that cruise ship in Japan keep rising.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on February 08, 2020, 06:41:15 AM
Quote from: mamselle on February 07, 2020, 09:54:02 AM
Somewhat like this logic (n=1), I nearly cancelled my wonderful, productive, satisfying trip to Europe last month.

There was the treat of a "Named storm" hitting England the week Iwas due to land at Hea5hrow.

The French train strikes were starting, and I worried other countries might go out in sympathy.

I found out one of the libraries I had to visit was going to be unusually closed on the week I'd planned to visit.

Etc.

I went anyway.

I'm glad I did.

I found a workaround for one set of cancelled trains, and discoved thenight-before schedule that made planning possible otherwise.

I flipped two nearby library visits and made it to the one I really had to see the next-to-last day (and got everything there done.)

Etc.

Not on the same level of worry, exactly, but a parallel combination of potential for anxiety and offsetting reasons not to let it be the voice that calls the game...

M.

Yeah, I know what you mean. The problem with anxiety is that it is totally rational to be concerned about all kinds of things. Of course you want to be keeping an eye on the weather when you travel, and you don't want to be trying to travel around a foreign country during some massive transit strike.
If I was scheduled to take a trip to Indonesia or something right now, I might rethink it. The actual risk of getting this might be pretty low, but this is all pretty disruptive to travel and I wouldn't want to put myself in a position to get stuck. But there's a thin line between totally reasonable caution and excessive anxiety that gets in the way of your life.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on February 08, 2020, 07:01:49 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on February 08, 2020, 06:35:18 AM
I'm wondering if this thing is more contagious than they're telling us. One person who had travelled to Singapore spread it to the other people in their ski lodge in France. The numbers on that cruise ship in Japan keep rising.

They've been saying it is about as contagious as the flu for quite some time and those things seem pretty consistent with that. You aren't usually going to get the flu just from walking by someone on the street, but if you're in close proximity to people you can get it pretty easily. This is the problem with the way media coverage of something like this works. 700 people dying in China seems terrifying, and obviously it is awful, but 20k people in the US this year have died of the flu. This does seem quite a bit worse than the flu, but it also is pretty clearly that the vast majority of people who get this, get better. It also seems clear that, like the flu, it is most dangerous to people with compromised immune systems and the elderly. It seems to be barely effecting children at all.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on February 10, 2020, 09:55:59 AM
Traveled cross-country for a conference and on the return flight started feeling terrible, with respiratory symptoms. I did not eat bat soup however, so I feel confident that it's not the Wuhan coronavirus. I did see some people on planes wearing N95 masks, which was odd.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on February 10, 2020, 12:38:12 PM
The Guardian reports that the death rate from the current coronavirus seems to be about 2%, where the death rate from the flu is less than 1%. Or more precisely:

We don't yet know how dangerous the new coronavirus is, and we won't know until more data comes in. The mortality rate is around 2%. However, this is likely to be an overestimate since many more people are likely to have been infected by the virus but not suffered severe enough symptoms to attend hospital, and so have not been counted. For comparison, seasonal flu typically has a mortality rate below 1% and is thought to cause about 400,000 deaths each year globally. Sars had a death rate of more than 10%.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/10/what-is-coronavirus-how-worried-symptoms-how-spread
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on February 10, 2020, 03:40:04 PM
https://dronedj.com/2020/02/09/drone-delivers-wine-couple-quarantined-coronavirus-cruise-ship/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on February 10, 2020, 07:38:27 PM
Quotehttps://dronedj.com/2020/02/09/drone-delivers-wine-couple-quarantined-coronavirus-cruise-ship/

As do the comments to the article, I call Bullshit.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: fuwafuwa on February 26, 2020, 09:32:50 PM
Glad to be working at middle-of-nowhere university! 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morris Zapp on February 27, 2020, 05:42:31 AM
Attended a graduation planning meeting the other day. We have online students so participants will come from all over even overseas. Odds that all graduations all be cancelled this year?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on February 27, 2020, 07:15:21 AM
There are 3 threads running on this topic.

Is there a way to get some convergence?

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on February 27, 2020, 08:33:50 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/world/asia/japan-schools-coronavirus.html

Japan Shocks Parents by Moving to Close All Schools Over Coronavirus



Oh, dear Lord, please let this happen here.  I can use a vacation.  Amen.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: backatit on February 27, 2020, 09:14:21 AM
Quote from: Morris Zapp on February 27, 2020, 05:42:31 AM
Attended a graduation planning meeting the other day. We have online students so participants will come from all over even overseas. Odds that all graduations all be cancelled this year?

I'll take pretty high for $10. The UK is doing some pretty strong pre-planning in the school system (and my partner's company just announced a travel ban - no travel, necessary or unnecessary, and not even to Asia. We are having to cancel our usual Spring trip).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on February 27, 2020, 09:37:03 AM
Quote from: mamselle on February 27, 2020, 07:15:21 AM
There are 3 threads running on this topic.

Is there a way to get some convergence?

M.

The threaduality is spreading as fast as the virus.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: backatit on February 27, 2020, 02:16:52 PM
Quote from: backatit on February 27, 2020, 09:14:21 AM
Quote from: Morris Zapp on February 27, 2020, 05:42:31 AM
Attended a graduation planning meeting the other day. We have online students so participants will come from all over even overseas. Odds that all graduations all be cancelled this year?

I'll take pretty high for $10. The UK is doing some pretty strong pre-planning in the school system (and my partner's company just announced a travel ban - no travel, necessary or unnecessary, and not just to Asia. We are having to cancel our usual Spring trip).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: magnemite on February 28, 2020, 10:54:04 AM
What might be interesting is that the covid-19 cases will ramp up at ~same time as seasonal pollen allergies do, and the respiratory and other effects of pollen allergies seem to parallel who folks react mildly (for all we know) to this novel virus. So, a mix of pollen mistaken for virus, and of viral cases being overlooked (thinking it is pollen) might be a complicating factor. So, let's hope a good, reliable, and plentiful set of test kits can be produced and distributed.

A related thought is that folks (like me) who have bad pollen allergies may well be at risk for a more severe reaction to the covid-19, given that the severe respiratory symptoms are an over stimulated immune system response (as with pollen allergies).

** take the above with a giant grain of salt, as I'm the wrong sort of Dr. to really know what's what about viral infections...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: zyzzx on February 28, 2020, 11:42:44 AM
So, I have tried to look for this, and have not found such an analysis, but shouldn't the Diamond Princess cruise ship fiasco give us a pretty definitive idea of the mortality rates (at least for that demographic)? From my understanding of all the news articles, everyone on the ship ended up getting tested, right? So here's a population in which every case, mild/asymptomatic or not, would be caught. So according to the Johns Hopkins website, there were 705 cases, 5 deaths, and 690 cases not yet resolved. So with at least 5 deaths, that's at least 0.7% mortality rate, and that number can only go up. I guess cruise ship passengers likely skew older, but still, this seems like a pretty obvious case study where we really do know the denominator in the mortality rate equation. I am somewhat surprised that these numbers are not discussed more; I hope that some epidemiologists are closely following this population, as it seems like a very useful source of data.

At any rate, I am headed off for a Europe-US trip in a few days, and I admit that I routed my flights with an eye towards not getting stranded by border restrictions or flight cancellations. It would really suck to get stranded/quarantined away from home in a country where I don't have health insurance. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on February 28, 2020, 12:26:32 PM
QuoteFrom my understanding of all the news articles, everyone on the ship ended up getting tested, right?

I dont think so...

"Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said Monday that it might be difficult to test everyone aboard the ship.

Only 336 passengers had been tested as of Monday, according to the health ministry."

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/02/10/national/japan-test-all-passengers-diamond-princess-cruise-ship-coronavirus/#.Xll2U6hKjIU


The inability to test the passengers was linked to a shortage of the testing supplies. 

Recently California's Governor indicated that they had only 400 kits, if I remember the number.  That is a big part of the weakness in the response. It is hard to identify who has the illness, and it has taken some time to get the results back... it is not a quick test.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on February 28, 2020, 12:32:08 PM
To continue...
"California Gov. Gavin Newsom said at least 8,400 people have been monitored locally, but the number of test kits his state has received isn't enough. We have just 200 kits, and that's for not just the traditional diagnostic, but also surveillance. It's simply inadequate," Newsom said Thursday. "But no longer will that be the case. ... We have been assured of our capacity to significantly, exponentially increase the capacity to test.""

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/health/us-cases-coronavirus-community-transmission/index.html
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: zyzzx on February 28, 2020, 01:17:30 PM
Quote from: clean on February 28, 2020, 12:26:32 PM
QuoteFrom my understanding of all the news articles, everyone on the ship ended up getting tested, right?

I dont think so...

"Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said Monday that it might be difficult to test everyone aboard the ship.

Only 336 passengers had been tested as of Monday, according to the health ministry."

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/02/10/national/japan-test-all-passengers-diamond-princess-cruise-ship-coronavirus/#.Xll2U6hKjIU


The inability to test the passengers was linked to a shortage of the testing supplies. 

Recently California's Governor indicated that they had only 400 kits, if I remember the number.  That is a big part of the weakness in the response. It is hard to identify who has the illness, and it has taken some time to get the results back... it is not a quick test.

That was Feb. 10, which was ages ago... From more recent articles about the end of the quarantine, it sounds like people were not allowed to leave unless they tested negative. And everyone who got repatriated on a special flight would have also been tested. Looks like 23 people did slip the net (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/23/coronavirus-woman-on-diamond-princess-cruise-ship-tested-positive-after-disembarking), but that wouldn't be noteworthy unless they'd thought they'd tested everybody.

Dunno what's going on with the inability to do tests in the US, but other countries seem to have figured this out - South Korea is getting up to something like 10,000 per day.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on February 28, 2020, 01:21:59 PM
So here's the thing about the "testing". Right now there is no universally agreed upon, validated, easily available commercial kit to test for this. Samples sent to the CDC have the viral genomes PCR amplified and sequenced! This is NOT something that the average community hospital has the ability or the expertise to do. Especially if your community hospital farms out their testing to Quest Diagnostics or the like. I'm amazed that the news hasn't brought up this fact- the virus is too new to have a reliable test developed for it yet!
    Most the testing being done right now in the US is for every other family of respiratory viruses. This is what my colleagues who are Clinical Micro directors at major hospitals are doing. It's a process of elimination. If you don't have flu/ RSV/adenovirus etc. and you have the appropriate symptoms, THEN we send your sample to the CDC. It's slow.
    In Asia they MAY be using some sort of SARS test as the closest thing- but that will have a huge error rate. I have colleagues who work in molecular diagnostics companies and have been to Chinese hospitals. Chinese hospitals have accumulated all the equipment for the molecular tests, but generally don't have anyone who knows how to run them. They are often showpieces. This is a BIG part of the reason why the numbers in China have been so wonky- we haven't all decided what "counts" as having Corona virus. The US numbers will be slow coming out, but will at least be more accurate.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hibush on February 28, 2020, 01:48:17 PM
Thanks mythbuster for that update.

How many of the supplies and machines for testing are made in China, and therefore subject to the same supply shortage that is hitting other industries?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: no1capybara on March 02, 2020, 08:12:30 AM
Thanks Mythbuster, for the info. It's already interesting to read this thread and see the information and thoughts change over the past month or so.

I spoke to a friend of mine Friday who is a large city health and safety director.  That city has gone through several public health alerts.  He said the main thing will be to try to slow the spread of the virus until they can get a vaccine developed which should be a year or so.

In the meantime I am waiting to hear if I get a major travel grant in April.  I will DIEEEEEEEEE if I get it and then they ban all Americans from entering the country or otherwise screw up the travel.

DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEE I tell you.  The anxiety is driving me nuts!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on March 02, 2020, 02:52:52 PM
So on my Twitter feed, I saw a faculty member on the west coast (CA, not WA) who seems very woke, pronounce that they have taken the following steps as a result of the potential pandemic:
- I'm using Zoom to broadcast my lectures
- I'm no longer taking attendance
- I've cancelled sections
- I'm doing course evals early

I'm inspired to stay home and cancel all sorts of stuff. I'm just curious how grades will be assigned for students who do worse as a result of these changes.

I was under the impression that there was a Federal mandate to take attendance. Something to do with student funding.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 02, 2020, 03:08:08 PM
QuoteI was under the impression that there was a Federal mandate to take attendance. Something to do with student funding.

I do not take attendance in my classes. 
I do report those that have not attended by the 12th day, which is something related to student funding.  When I submit final grades, I am required to report the last date attended for those earning an F.  I use the last date of any work submitted/quizzes taken.  (I give frequent quizzes.  IF they attend, they get at least a 1, so a zero means that the student was not in attendance).

For what it is worth.

For the other... I would not take such actions unilaterally.  There is a requirement to meet your classes, and changing the format of a class to online is not something that I think a faculty member can do unilaterally.
There could be repercussions.  Students could complain that they are not able to learn and ask questions or whatever.  There are test issues I would think.  Grade appeals would be hard to defend with a unilateral change.  Faculty members could complain and administrators would find this hard to defend, I would think. 

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 02, 2020, 04:23:49 PM
"...changing the format of a class to online is not something that I think a faculty member can do unilaterally." Unilaterally meaning what?  Moving classes online is part of our disaster policy (we are in an earthquake zone). I moved mine online once when we were snowed in for a week and campus was closed.

I think it would be smarter for the university as a whole to set guidelines as to when it's time to move classes online, but I also think prudence is the better part of valor. Some professors are immune-compromised, some are undergoing treatment for cancer, some have severe asthma ... I don't think any of those should be compelled to endanger their lives when perfectly suitable alternatives exist. The West Coast has multiple cases of community transmission going on — it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 02, 2020, 06:20:30 PM
Quote"...changing the format of a class to online is not something that I think a faculty member can do unilaterally." Unilaterally meaning what?  Moving classes online is part of our disaster policy (we are in an earthquake zone). I moved mine online once when we were snowed in for a week and campus was closed.

I think it would be smarter for the university as a whole to set guidelines as to when it's time to move classes online, but I also think prudence is the better part of valor. Some professors are immune-compromised, some are undergoing treatment for cancer, some have severe asthma ... I don't think any of those should be compelled to endanger their lives when perfectly suitable alternatives exist. The West Coast has multiple cases of community transmission going on — it's going to get worse before it gets better.

"Unilaterally meaning what?  Moving classes online is part of our disaster policy (we are in an earthquake zone). I moved mine online once when we were snowed in for a week and campus was closed." 
IF campus was closed, that would initiate the switch.  Faculty do not close the campus, administration does.  When we close for hurricanes, that is the signal to implement the switch.  It is not a professor deciding that "it is going to rain, so we will be online for the next 40 days".

"ome professors are immune-compromised, some are undergoing treatment for cancer, some have severe asthma I don't think any of those should be compelled to endanger their lives when perfectly suitable alternatives exist."
then they should notify their supervisor that they have an issue and seek permission to make the changes.  Even with the American Disabilities Act, your employer is not required to accept YOUR solution to the problem.  The employer must allow accommodations, but not just any accommodation is permitted, even under ADA.  The point is, IF you take unilateral action, then you are alone. That may be fine, but IF there are problems, you will be hanging out there ALONE ... as an example perhaps of what or how to do or NOT do something. 

Maybe I just feel that MY administration has taken too many lessons from the Chinese Government.  ... the one that arrests you and makes you apologize for doing the right thing, but which may be viewed as critical of the government or 'spreading rumors'.  It is best NOT to be on the front line before the firing squad.  It is best to be behind the administration, not in front of it. 

Im reminded that one should not do something that would not look good on the front page of the local paper.  Professor (not administration) cancelling classes (or not showing up to classes in person) would not be looked upon favorably by administration I dont think.  IF it were the correct thing to do, then the administration would initiate the action (like a snow day mentioned above). 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 02, 2020, 07:27:53 PM
Well, I also moved online when I was stuck in another city for a week by a snowstorm after a conference. The rest of the university continued as usual.

In the present situation, I am head of a program, and I've let the profs teaching in my program know that I fully support them switching their classes to online, even if the university does not mandate it as a whole. In the case of one prof who is definitely immune-compromised, I have urged her to do it, and told her that I will meet up with her to help her get her materials online rapidly and smoothly. I also will be holding our regular department meeting online, by email — it's only 9 people, so that's simple enough.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 02, 2020, 07:52:11 PM
QuoteWell, I also moved online when I was stuck in another city for a week by a snowstorm after a conference. The rest of the university continued as usual.
That was appropriate.  However, you didnt go online for 'winter' because there is a danger of snow. It was not open ended.

I hope your decisions do not come back to haunt you.  As I believe I said earlier, if everything works out, then there is no problem.  IF one person complains, some actions would be hard to find support by administration (at least the administration I have at the salt mine that buys my services!) 

IF one program on campus 'went rogue' while others were still requiring classes to meet where and when scheduled, I suspect that would trigger the 'one person complains' situation and the department head of the 'rogue' department would have what in my vocabulary would be defined as "a coming to Jesus meeting" with a higher level administrator.

Good luck!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 02, 2020, 08:49:14 PM
Clean, your place is much more micro-managing than ours.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 02, 2020, 09:57:49 PM
I hope you are right and all works out positively. 

I hope that the actions you are taking are well documented and supported by the policy.  For instance, while it is nice that you are supporting your ill coworkers, here, if someone has cancer and needs an accommodation for their schedule, they would need to file paperwork with HR first.  HR would then take the steps to inform the chair to make the required adjustments. It would not be appropriate for the chair to take these actions without the documentation going to HR first.  Otherwise, should someone else later claim that they deserve similar treatment, but did not get it, it opens the university to legal entanglements. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 02, 2020, 11:51:38 PM
Do you not have online courses as a regular part of your curriculum?  Some of our courses are online, some are face-to-face, and we certainly don't have to get permission, much less HR permission (!) to run one or the other. In fact I had set up six new online courses just before the whole coronavirus thing broke, and I certainly didn't need anyone's permission to do so, any more than I did when I set up last year's batch. We're on the quarter system, as well, so the new set doesn't start until the beginning of April — plenty of time to adjust if need be. And I see no issues with offering the online option to all our faculty. The university has been urging us to develop more and more online courses, giving us extra development funds to transfer courses online, and applauding if we do it.  It's win-win over here.

If you really have to jump through so many hoops just to offer an online course, your place is even more micro-managing than I had assumed.  Do they also require the agreement of higher administration and HR if you decide to run them on a Tuesday/Thursday schedule instead of MWF, or as a once-a-week seminar, or as a hybrid online/face-to-face course (we have those too, completely at the discretion of the department), or anything else outside of the normal lockstep? 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 03, 2020, 12:20:53 AM
QuoteDo you not have online courses as a regular part of your curriculum?  Some of our courses are online, some are face-to-face, and we certainly don't have to get permission, much less HR permission (!) to run one or the other. In fact I had set up six new online courses just before the whole coronavirus thing broke, and I certainly didn't need anyone's permission to do so, any more than I did when I set up last year's batch. We're on the quarter system, as well, so the new set doesn't start until the beginning of April — plenty of time to adjust if need be. And I see no issues with offering the online option to all our faculty. The university has been urging us to develop more and more online courses, giving us extra development funds to transfer courses online, and applauding if we do it.  It's win-win over here.

Yes we have online classes.  We also have a full semester, so if someone decided, of their own accord, that they would move a face to face class online as a response to CV19 I foresee problems for that faculty member.  Making changes at the start of the term is not a problem. However, this conversation was started because someone in California made such a decision, and not at the start of a quarter.  It also seems that you, an administrator, have made changes that are congruent with the university's mission and goals.  It seems that those changes were made at the usual time for such changes, and not in the middle of a quarter. If so, then that is not the same situation as that alluded to in CA.

Do we need permission to change to TR from MWF... well that is a bit of a trick question.  Our building management issues require that a certain percentage of classes be offered on MWF, and even before 930 am.  As long as the requirements are met, then no permission is required. However, if moving a class from MWF or after 930am  caused a department to go out of compliance, then there would be problems or approval by the higher ups.  (Administration has studied the formula funding requirements from the state that govern approval of new buildings, and as administration wants new buildings built, then deviations from their optimization formula plan ARE monitored!)

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on March 03, 2020, 05:01:34 AM
One thing about all of this that is vastly different from a "weather event" is the time scale. We have the occasional snow day here; a big storm may last for a day or two, and cleanup may take a day or two. Usually we only miss a day, but a week would be ridiculously long. However, a viral outbreak is going to last weeks if not months. Rather than missing a day or maybe a week of classes, it may lead to losing an entire term. That sort of thing has occasionally happened for strikes, but even then there's a clear date when it's over. In this case, arbitrary decisions will have to be made, and they won't necessarily be the same for neighbouring institutions or communities.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 03, 2020, 06:12:25 AM
There's a larger social aspect of this to consider, as well. Based on the available evidence, there's no reason to think that Coronavirus is widely circulating throughout the US. The people who seem trustworthy think that if it was it would be getting picked up in flu surveillance data as a surge of hospitalizations. So, what seems to be occurring, is small outbreaks, certainly in Washington and probably in one or two places in California. Is the virus circulating in some other places without anybody knowing about it? Probably. Is it circulating in your area, and are you at all likely to get it on your campus? Probably not. In fact, there's a very good chance that getting coronavirus is pretty far down on the lists of risks you are running in going to campus. Probably below auto accident. I understand that some people are in high risk groups, but even in that case, the flu, which is definitely circulating on your campus, is probably a much greater risk.

All of this might change. We might have widespread transmission in a lot of places and all kinds of things might need to change. But, the problem is we can't do that forever. What that means is that drastic measures need to be pretty carefully calibrated. Shutting down schools and asking most people to stay home is something you would do if you thought you had a dramatically expanding epidemic in the area and needed to slow it down to avoid hospitals being overrun and really sick people not being able to get treatment. You couldn't do it for too long. That also means it won't help if individuals start making weird decisions now. All it is going to do is erode people's ability to do the things they need to do later. We can't all be in crisis mode forever.

Like it or not, students think of professors as authority figures. If their professor emails them and tells them that the class at San Diego College has been moved online because of Coronavirus, they are going to think this means there's a real threat and will be confused since the University is saying that there are no changes since the threat, at the moment, seems low. Is that going to improve their confidence in future notifications from the University or other authorities? There's a social responsibility at the moment to make sure you aren't letting your fears about a novel threat cause you to do things that aren't rational.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 03, 2020, 06:33:29 AM
What Caracal says may be true. However, my particular university is located in one of the places that's having a demonstrated outbreak.

I also personally think it's likely that the virus is circulating widely in ways that are not being monitored. You all may be interested in the experience of "Sketchy Woman" on Twitter.  She posted:

"I live in Seattle, I have all symptoms of COVID-19 and have a history of chronic bronchitis. Since I work in a physical therapy clinic with many 65+ patients and those with chronic illnesses, I decided to be responsible and go to get tested. This is how that went.

"I called the Corona hotline, was on hold for 40 minutes and gave up. So I looked at the CDC and Washington public health websites.  They told me to see a primary care doctor, but there's no information about testing.

"I called 2 primary care doctors. One told me they don't know where to get testing, and that I should not to seek out testing. The other one told me to go to an urgent care or ER. I called the Urgent Care, they also had no idea where tests are, but told me to call the hospital.

"I called the hospital. They do not have tests, but transferred me to the COVID-19 hotline to "answer my questions". Since I was transferred on a medical provider line, I actually got through. Progress!

"The lady with the hotline was very kind and professional and understood my concern about my own health and those at my clinic. (Which is currently being sanitized). However, I was told I do not qualify for testing. And I was not given a timeline or info on current resources.

"So. Who does qualify? Those who have been out of the country in the last 14 days, and those who have had contact with one of the few people who have been tested and come up positive. That's it.

"The only way I can get treated is if my symptoms get so bad I develop pneumonia or bronchitis, which is very likely in my case. Then I'll be in the ER and quarantined for several days while waiting for a test and for the results to come back.

"This is all incredibly frustrating because I am trying to do everything right in a system that punishes moments of "weakness" like taking days off. It's also scary to know that I won't be able to get help until I need life support."

People have been chiming in with similar stories. For instance: "I'm a medical provider in a psych ward near Seattle. I tried to transfer a sick pt to the ER to be checked for corona. He said he had relatives who'd been to Asia recently. Well, it was like WW3 to get pt transferred & they didn't check him for corona. Just sent him back to us."

And people have reported that the CDC site on infection rate is not being updated. Entire thread here: https://twitter.com/into_the_brush/status/1234685467682979840

In short, we don't know how fast the virus is spreading, and we are not gathering the information in any systematic way. It may well be that we are in for months of this — maybe two years of this. I know some people say, "Screw it, for 80% of us it will be a minor virus, let's go about business as usual." For the 20% who may need intensive care, or ventilators, or who may die, I think it's understandable if they feel less sanguine. I'm on the side of not killing my faculty and students, even only 2% of them.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on March 03, 2020, 06:52:08 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on March 03, 2020, 06:33:29 AM

People have been chiming in with similar stories. For instance: "I'm a medical provider in a psych ward near Seattle. I tried to transfer a sick pt to the ER to be checked for corona. He said he had relatives who'd been to Asia recently. Well, it was like WW3 to get pt transferred & they didn't check him for corona. Just sent him back to us."


Frustrating as this is, I'm guessing it's at least partly due to the availability of test kits. There are probably barely enough for people who have probably been in contact with the virus, and until production and distribution are ramped up a lot that's the way it will stay.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on March 03, 2020, 07:03:43 AM
I think the idea that the minimal steps we are taking would have any chance of stopping an infectious disease like this from coming and spreading is crazy.  China clamped down pretty hard, doing much more than I could see the US or most Western countries attempting, and it has still spread within and outside of China.  Now with it spreading in other countries outside of China, it seems inevitable that it will come and start spreading within North America.  We simply live in a world that makes stopping something like this nearly impossible. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 03, 2020, 07:05:46 AM
I was travelling last weekend, and it was amusing/a little sad to see how many people in all the airports were wearing various kinds of face mask (including some pretty heavy-duty painting masks).
`
There's no way they were all sick, which means they mistakenly think wearing a face mask will protect them.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 03, 2020, 07:26:00 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on March 03, 2020, 06:33:29 AM
What Caracal says may be true. However, my particular university is located in one of the places that's having a demonstrated outbreak.

I also personally think it's likely that the virus is circulating widely in ways that are not being monitored. You all may be interested in the experience of "Sketchy Woman" on Twitter.  She posted:

"I live in Seattle, I have all symptoms of COVID-19 and have a history of chronic bronchitis. Since I work in a physical therapy clinic with many 65+ patients and those with chronic illnesses, I decided to be responsible and go to get tested. This is how that went.

"I called the Corona hotline, was on hold for 40 minutes and gave up. So I looked at the CDC and Washington public health websites.  They told me to see a primary care doctor, but there's no information about testing.

"I called 2 primary care doctors. One told me they don't know where to get testing, and that I should not to seek out testing. The other one told me to go to an urgent care or ER. I called the Urgent Care, they also had no idea where tests are, but told me to call the hospital.

"I called the hospital. They do not have tests, but transferred me to the COVID-19 hotline to "answer my questions". Since I was transferred on a medical provider line, I actually got through. Progress!

"The lady with the hotline was very kind and professional and understood my concern about my own health and those at my clinic. (Which is currently being sanitized). However, I was told I do not qualify for testing. And I was not given a timeline or info on current resources.

"So. Who does qualify? Those who have been out of the country in the last 14 days, and those who have had contact with one of the few people who have been tested and come up positive. That's it.

"The only way I can get treated is if my symptoms get so bad I develop pneumonia or bronchitis, which is very likely in my case. Then I'll be in the ER and quarantined for several days while waiting for a test and for the results to come back.

"This is all incredibly frustrating because I am trying to do everything right in a system that punishes moments of "weakness" like taking days off. It's also scary to know that I won't be able to get help until I need life support."

People have been chiming in with similar stories. For instance: "I'm a medical provider in a psych ward near Seattle. I tried to transfer a sick pt to the ER to be checked for corona. He said he had relatives who'd been to Asia recently. Well, it was like WW3 to get pt transferred & they didn't check him for corona. Just sent him back to us."

And people have reported that the CDC site on infection rate is not being updated. Entire thread here: https://twitter.com/into_the_brush/status/1234685467682979840

In short, we don't know how fast the virus is spreading, and we are not gathering the information in any systematic way. It may well be that we are in for months of this — maybe two years of this. I know some people say, "Screw it, for 80% of us it will be a minor virus, let's go about business as usual." For the 20% who may need intensive care, or ventilators, or who may die, I think it's understandable if they feel less sanguine. I'm on the side of not killing my faculty and students, even only 2% of them.

To be clear, I don't think we should ignore things. Also, as I said, since you are in an area that has an outbreak, different considerations might be at play especially if you are in a high risk group. I wouldn't think someone in those circumstances who didn't feel comfortable teaching classes was being irresponsible.

That said, I think we all need to be careful about these anecdotal stories going around Twitter. I have no idea who "Sketchy Woman" is. She could be a Russian Bot, a troll who likes scaring people by making up frightening stories, or someone with mental illness. Maybe she's a hypochondriac, like me. She could also be someone who is just freaked out in a way that is causing her to mischaracterize the situation. "All the symptoms of Covid-19" sounds scary but probably just mean she has a cough and a fever. The estimates are that perhaps 1500 people in Washington might have acquired this so far. 3.5 million people live in the greater Seattle area, so I'm going to guess there are a lot more people right now who have the flu or a mild cold. Eventually they are going to need to get testing up so they can actually figure out the scale of the problem, and it sounds like they will be there by the end of the week. But basically, people who are sick should stay home and limit contact with others. That's sort of it. She also reports guidelines on testing that are not correct now, that could be alarming if that is what she is being told, but again, this is just some person on twitter and you want to be careful.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 03, 2020, 07:27:54 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on March 03, 2020, 07:03:43 AM
I think the idea that the minimal steps we are taking would have any chance of stopping an infectious disease like this from coming and spreading is crazy.  China clamped down pretty hard, doing much more than I could see the US or most Western countries attempting, and it has still spread within and outside of China.  Now with it spreading in other countries outside of China, it seems inevitable that it will come and start spreading within North America.  We simply live in a world that makes stopping something like this nearly impossible.

Well, what China did actually does seem to have worked in terms of dramatically slowing down spread within China for the moment. It isn't clear how much of it we could do or we would even want to if we could.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 03, 2020, 09:13:03 AM
Just reporting in that my university has officially announced that we are invoking the crisis plan, and that people are encouraged to transfer their classes online or otherwise adapt to the unfolding situation.

As for "Sketchy Woman," sure, she could be a bot, as could the many other people reporting chaos and confusion over how to get tested. The people being interviewed on TV about it could be lying as well. The pundits commenting on the difficulties could be operating on false information. It could all be minor and under control. If that's true, no worries. If at least some of those people are sincere and correct about their experiences, it suggests to me that erring on the side of caution has a potentially great up side, and little down side.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 03, 2020, 09:48:47 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on March 03, 2020, 09:13:03 AM
Just reporting in that my university has officially announced that we are invoking the crisis plan, and that people are encouraged to transfer their classes online or otherwise adapt to the unfolding situation.

As for "Sketchy Woman," sure, she could be a bot, as could the many other people reporting chaos and confusion over how to get tested. The people being interviewed on TV about it could be lying as well. The pundits commenting on the difficulties could be operating on false information. It could all be minor and under control. If that's true, no worries. If at least some of those people are sincere and correct about their experiences, it suggests to me that erring on the side of caution has a potentially great up side, and little down side.

I'm glad to hear about your school. That sounds like the appropriate course of action at the moment given the local situation.

As for the rest, I think it is important to find the balance between everything is "minor and under control" and full on panic. There's a temptation when you lack complete information to fill in the blanks with whatever random information you can find, but that is going to result in a ton of misinformation which won't help.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morris Zapp on March 03, 2020, 11:16:15 AM
My dad has lung cancer and is taking no precautions though they live in an outbreak area because Fox News is telling him it will be fine. He believes there is no real danger, just hype.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 03, 2020, 04:00:29 PM
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/#correct


this article explains how to calculate the mortality rate for an ongoing illness.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: reener06 on March 03, 2020, 04:24:13 PM
Yes, Sketchy woman could be a bot. So could I, I suppose.

My sister went to China and returned Jan. 22. She had COVID-19 symptoms within a day of returning. After 3 days (where she went to work, at a hospital, and went to the store, etc.) she went to her doctor. She was put into an isolated room, but the doctor wouldn't test her, thought she probably didn't have it. Told her to stay home for a few days--but she didn't, not fully, because she went to get my 89 year old father the next week.

There were probably 300 people in the flight with her.

So, yeah, I feel safe.

I'm high risk, so I'm hanging out at home. Also on sabbatical, so I can do that. Not looking forward to where this goes.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 03, 2020, 10:43:45 PM
Reener, did your father come down with anything?  (I hope not!)  Can you tell us what region of the country she lives in?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 04, 2020, 04:38:33 AM
Quote from: reener06 on March 03, 2020, 04:24:13 PM
Yes, Sketchy woman could be a bot. So could I, I suppose.

My sister went to China and returned Jan. 22. She had COVID-19 symptoms within a day of returning. After 3 days (where she went to work, at a hospital, and went to the store, etc.) she went to her doctor. She was put into an isolated room, but the doctor wouldn't test her, thought she probably didn't have it. Told her to stay home for a few days--but she didn't, not fully, because she went to get my 89 year old father the next week.

There were probably 300 people in the flight with her.

So, yeah, I feel safe.

I'm high risk, so I'm hanging out at home. Also on sabbatical, so I can do that. Not looking forward to where this goes.

To be clear, I wasn't actually saying the person was a bot, she doesn't seem to be. I was just pointing out that random twitter accounts aren't a particularly good source of information during a crisis. I think in a weird way we tend to trust them more than unverified things you hear from people you know, or people relaying secondhand information. And again, I really think the point about the tendency to fill in information is key. Obviously, I believe your account Reener, but chances are your sister didn't have Coronavirus. There actually weren't all that many cases outside of Hubei, so any individual person who had a cough and a fever and was in China, probably just had a bad cold or the flu. Heck, maybe her doctor had very good reasons to believe that to be the case based on symptoms.

The broader problem here, of course, is that obviously this has been messed up. There's reason to doubt there was really a great chance to contain this, but the people in charge clearly messed it up and haven't been testing enough people. If you don't think you are getting the best information you can quickly move to filling in blanks. The issue is that everyone jumps from that to absolute worst case scenario at this exact moment and that probably isn't real helpful.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 04, 2020, 09:02:33 AM
There's a report on the difficulty of getting tested here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/03/coronavirus-washington-state-deaths-testing

"One potential sufferer in the state, Jeannette Jameson, 61, a criminal defense lawyer, told the Guardian that she had been sick for about a month when her doctor suggested she go to an emergency room to be tested for the virus. On Monday, Jameson went to Providence hospital in Everett, Washington, and after waiting for over two hours near dozens of other sick people, she was escorted to a chair in the hallway, separated from other patients with respiratory symptoms by carpeted wall partitions. Jameson said she never saw a doctor, and after testing negative for flu and being given a chest X-ray, she was discharged with papers that said she had "some non-specific respiratory virus", along with prescriptions for ibuprofen and acetaminophen. When she asked why she wasn't given a test for coronavirus, she said that a nurse practitioner told her she could only get tested if she was admitted to the hospital with severe symptoms. After the flu test results came back and Jameson asked about the coronavirus test, she said the registered nurse practitioner told her: "You should be glad you don't have influenza because that's worse than coronavirus.""

Among the maddening things about this are that they didn't tell her upfront that they would refuse to test her for COVID-19; that they put her in a situation where she could infect numerous others; and that they undoubtedly charged her an arm and a leg for this inconclusive waste of time.

Meanwhile someone I know had a son who flew from Milan to Newark, has a cough and a virus, and nobody at Newark Airport tested him or even seemed to be aware that there might be an issue.

All of this is just making me, and everyone, more skeptical when they announce things like: "We have only 90 coronavirus patients in the U.S." What they really mean is that among the very limited number they tested, they found 90.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on March 04, 2020, 09:24:29 AM
So I caught up with my colleagues who run various hospital Micro labs last night, as well as several colleagues who head the Microbiology section of the State Health Department lab. They are all exhausted. The state lab has now been cleared to do initial testing for the virus. Those that come up positive are "presumptive positive" and the samples will be forwarded to the CDC for confirmation.
   The FDA has also put in extreme streamlining for private hospitals to develop their own in house tests with approval in as little as 48 hours. However, the development of the test will take several weeks before you can ask the FDA for the quick approval.
   I will reiterate. The reason that it is so hard to get tested is because there is no one agreed upon test. Apparently there is one diagnostic company that has a general coronavirus test, but you need special equipment and it costs over $100 per sample to run. The test the CDC is distributing to State labs is a PCR based test, which means that they all should have the equipment and supplies should be relatively cheap and not coming from China.
   The general agreement of the group was that this virus has likely been in circulation for much longer than we realize. This is in part because many people just have common cold intensity symptoms.
   So stories like Hegemony's don't surprise me. It's likely that the hospital had no real way to test for this, and so ruling out flu was the next best idea.
 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 04, 2020, 09:27:17 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on March 04, 2020, 09:02:33 AM

All of this is just making me, and everyone, more skeptical when they announce things like: "We have only 90 coronavirus patients in the U.S." What they really mean is that among the very limited number they tested, they found 90.

Well nobody is actually saying there are only 90 cases. That isn't what the CDC is saying. They are saying there are outbreaks and they expect to find more cases. But yes, the lack of testing, which hopefully is quickly starting to change, is a real problem and shows that some things went really wrong. Some of these people, maybe most of them, don't have Coronavirus, but we can't have any idea of what is happening until we get more tests. It is also really, really not helping with the the anxiety and fear going around.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 04, 2020, 09:33:47 AM
Well, the article does say "a nurse practitioner told her she could only get tested if she was admitted to the hospital with severe symptoms." So that suggests that there was a test available. If they have few tests, I can understand why they would test only the most severe cases. Other countries seem to have many more tests at their disposal, which doesn't speak well to our ability to keep up. The lack of coordination is also worrying. There are multiple reports of doctors advising sick people to do things that other healthcare agencies refuse to do — as in this case, where a doctor told her to go to the emergency room for a test, and the emergency room then refused to test her. If there were clear directives about this, and the initial doctor had known them, they could have spared a possibly contagious person sitting near other sick people in the emergency room for several hours. And people flying in from Milan is a prime source of spread of the virus — many of the UK cases are from precisely that. So what's our policy on people flying in from Milan? Test them? Ask them to self-isolate without a test? Ignore them and figure the virus will spread anyway?  Let's get some policy decided and publicized, whatever it is.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on March 04, 2020, 10:13:07 AM
A friend has posted a picture from an Iowa City grocery store.  A store sign says that they are limiting the amount of items you can buy in certain categories such as rice, Lysol, toilet paper, water and paper towels.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on March 04, 2020, 11:31:06 AM
Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on March 04, 2020, 01:34:21 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on March 04, 2020, 09:02:33 AM
After the flu test results came back and Jameson asked about the coronavirus test, she said the registered nurse practitioner told her: "You should be glad you don't have influenza because that's worse than coronavirus."

The nurse was outright lying, of course - even by conservative estimates, the coronavirus has several times the fatality rate of ordinary seasonal flu (the worst-case estimates are over an order of mangnitude), and it's also more contagious. I guess the nurse was trying to be reassuring or something, but these sort of lies and false reassurance are exactly what feeds conspiracy theories, rumors, etc. If this had been a young child instead of a 61-year-old, the nurse would've probably been right, but it wasn't.


QuoteMeanwhile someone I know had a son who flew from Milan to Newark, has a cough and a virus, and nobody at Newark Airport tested him or even seemed to be aware that there might be an issue.

European airports aren't doing much, either (note that Italy didn't quarantine people being repatriated from China). Only in some Asian countries are airports checking people's temperature, etc.


QuoteAmong the maddening things about this are that they didn't tell her upfront that they would refuse to test her for COVID-19; that they put her in a situation where she could infect numerous others; and that they undoubtedly charged her an arm and a leg for this inconclusive waste of time.

Yep. Talking to a friend of mine, we both agreed that if we were in the US and suspected we had it we wouldn't go to a hospital unless it was immediately life-threatening bad, as we likely wouldn't get tested anyway and we would only get palliative care at best, so no point on spending several months' pay on it.
The Chinese and Japanese healthcare systems are looking very good on this, on the other hand. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 04, 2020, 02:33:21 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on March 04, 2020, 01:34:21 PM

Yep. Talking to a friend of mine, we both agreed that if we were in the US and suspected we had it we wouldn't go to a hospital unless it was immediately life-threatening bad, as we likely wouldn't get tested anyway and we would only get palliative care at best, so no point on spending several months' pay on it.
The Chinese and Japanese healthcare systems are looking very good on this, on the other hand.

You aren't supposed to go to a hospital unless you have symptoms of pneumonia. In fact, if this gets worse it will be very important that mildly sick without a lot of risk factors stay home and don't contribute to the overwhelming of the medical system. They aren't admitting everyone who has this to hospitals in Japan and China either. The vast majority of people are just going to have some flu symptoms and then get better with no medical treatment. (Which isn't to say there aren't lots of people in high risk groups, or this isn't dangerous)  At the moment, there aren't any drugs to treat it, so there's no reason for people to be in a hospital unless they develop more severe symptoms and need supportive care.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 04, 2020, 02:37:00 PM
In which case, it's important that there should be a consistent message across the healthcare system, instead of the woman's doctor explicitly telling to her go to the emergency room and get tested. When your doctor tells you to go to the emergency room, normally you tend to believe the doctor knows what they're talking about — after all, they're the one you're asking for advice.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 04, 2020, 02:51:42 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on March 04, 2020, 02:37:00 PM
In which case, it's important that there should be a consistent message across the healthcare system, instead of the woman's doctor explicitly telling to her go to the emergency room and get tested. When your doctor tells you to go to the emergency room, normally you tend to believe the doctor knows what they're talking about — after all, they're the one you're asking for advice.

Indeed. One really hopes that the CDC and local health departments are going to start doing a better job communicating to health care providers.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on March 04, 2020, 03:04:16 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on March 04, 2020, 02:37:00 PM
In which case, it's important that there should be a consistent message across the healthcare system, instead of the woman's doctor explicitly telling to her go to the emergency room and get tested. When your doctor tells you to go to the emergency room, normally you tend to believe the doctor knows what they're talking about — after all, they're the one you're asking for advice.

This. Basically, what I meant was that in the US my friend and I wouldn't go to a hospital unless it was immediately life-threatening even if explicitly told to do so by a physician.
The US is well past the early, imported-cases-only stage, but in the early stages actually it makes sense to test, if you can, everyone with reasonable suspicion it could be coronavirus, screen travelers, etc to prolong the early, "easy" stage as much as possible.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on March 04, 2020, 05:01:26 PM
Quote from: mythbuster on March 04, 2020, 09:24:29 AM
So I caught up with my colleagues who run various hospital Micro labs last night, as well as several colleagues who head the Microbiology section of the State Health Department lab. They are all exhausted. The state lab has now been cleared to do initial testing for the virus. Those that come up positive are "presumptive positive" and the samples will be forwarded to the CDC for confirmation.
   The FDA has also put in extreme streamlining for private hospitals to develop their own in house tests with approval in as little as 48 hours. However, the development of the test will take several weeks before you can ask the FDA for the quick approval.
   I will reiterate. The reason that it is so hard to get tested is because there is no one agreed upon test. Apparently there is one diagnostic company that has a general coronavirus test, but you need special equipment and it costs over $100 per sample to run. The test the CDC is distributing to State labs is a PCR based test, which means that they all should have the equipment and supplies should be relatively cheap and not coming from China.
   The general agreement of the group was that this virus has likely been in circulation for much longer than we realize. This is in part because many people just have common cold intensity symptoms.
   So stories like Hegemony's don't surprise me. It's likely that the hospital had no real way to test for this, and so ruling out flu was the next best idea.


All this just highlights the failure of the US response.  Other countries are testing thousands of people and have been for weeks.  They don't seem to be having any of these issues, or at least not to the same degree.  I just heard in BC and Ontario they are testing all patients that come to the hospital with flu like symptoms.  There is no reason that there should be a testing ssue in the US when Canada and so many other countries seem to be able to do it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 04, 2020, 05:23:28 PM
QuoteThere is no reason that there should be a testing ssue in the US when Canada and so many other countries seem to be able to do it.

Well, others on this fora are mentioning that there is no ONE test, so the test used in the US (reported to cost $100 to run) is not likely the test that others are using. The accuracy of the different tests around the world is also an issue, I am sure!  In this or the other Cornavirus thread, there was discussion of the Diamond Princess.  For much of the quarantine period, even Japan was unable to test the entirety of the passengers and crew, at least in any timely fashion. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 03:04:06 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 03, 2020, 07:05:46 AM
I was travelling last weekend, and it was amusing/a little sad to see how many people in all the airports were wearing various kinds of face mask (including some pretty heavy-duty painting masks).
`
There's no way they were all sick, which means they mistakenly think wearing a face mask will protect them.


It is my understanding that wearing a face mask will provide partial protection. Obviously, it doesn't cover your eyes and most of them are not airtight. However, if you are exposed, you will be exposed to less of the virus and viral load is important. In other words, it is literally better than nothing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 03:31:31 AM
Quote from: Caracal on March 04, 2020, 09:27:17 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on March 04, 2020, 09:02:33 AM

All of this is just making me, and everyone, more skeptical when they announce things like: "We have only 90 coronavirus patients in the U.S." What they really mean is that among the very limited number they tested, they found 90.

Well nobody is actually saying there are only 90 cases. That isn't what the CDC is saying. They are saying there are outbreaks and they expect to find more cases. But yes, the lack of testing, which hopefully is quickly starting to change, is a real problem and shows that some things went really wrong. Some of these people, maybe most of them, don't have Coronavirus, but we can't have any idea of what is happening until we get more tests. It is also really, really not helping with the the anxiety and fear going around.


Yes, I am sure most of them do not have the Coronavirus. If you take a look at the data for countries where there are known, serious outbreaks (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/covid-19-testing/), countries where they are testing thousands and tens of thousands of people, you will see that the rate of positive tests is still pretty low. It is  a little more than 4% positive for South Korea. In Italy, the rate was only a little higher in spite of there being an obvious crisis with lots of people dying and them deciding to limit testing only to those with symptoms. In the UK, where they are also testing many, many people, they are finding a .2% positive rate.


My point is not that we shouldn't be testing more. We definitely should be. How else are we going to contain the outbreak if we don't test?

Instead, my point is that people from Washington or Oregon who have flu symptoms and are worried about not being tested are really most likely to not have coronavirus. Or, no more than 1 in 20 Twitter complainers actually have it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on March 05, 2020, 04:00:05 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 03:31:31 AM

[. . .]

My point is not that we shouldn't be testing more. We definitely should be. How else are we going to contain the outbreak if we don't test?

[. . .]


The same way people have contained contagious diseases for centuries: self-quarantine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 04:03:19 AM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 04:00:05 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 03:31:31 AM

[. . .]

My point is not that we shouldn't be testing more. We definitely should be. How else are we going to contain the outbreak if we don't test?

[. . .]


The same way people have contained contagious diseases for centuries: self-quarantine.

So, you are suggesting that anyone and everyone who has cold and flu-like symptoms stay home? Well, I suppose that could work if we had more paid sick leave, but ha ha, we don't.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on March 05, 2020, 04:18:16 AM
Quote from: clean on March 04, 2020, 05:23:28 PM
QuoteThere is no reason that there should be a testing ssue in the US when Canada and so many other countries seem to be able to do it.

Well, others on this fora are mentioning that there is no ONE test, so the test used in the US (reported to cost $100 to run) is not likely the test that others are using. The accuracy of the different tests around the world is also an issue, I am sure!  In this or the other Cornavirus thread, there was discussion of the Diamond Princess.  For much of the quarantine period, even Japan was unable to test the entirety of the passengers and crew, at least in any timely fashion.

Well, this is a different narrative than what I have read.  What I read is that there was a standard WHO test that was available, but the CDC decided to develop their own and essentially dropped the ball.

South Korea had conducted about 36 000 tests to the US's 500.  China has confirmed almost 90 000, so how many tests have they run?

I don't know where the response went wrong in the US, but it clearly did.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on March 05, 2020, 04:57:47 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 04:03:19 AM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 04:00:05 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 03:31:31 AM

[. . .]

My point is not that we shouldn't be testing more. We definitely should be. How else are we going to contain the outbreak if we don't test?

[. . .]


The same way people have contained contagious diseases for centuries: self-quarantine.

So, you are suggesting that anyone and everyone who has cold and flu-like symptoms stay home? Well, I suppose that could work if we had more paid sick leave, but ha ha, we don't.

Here's the xkcd (https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/self_isolate.png) take on this.

On a tangential note- Does anyone know what anti-vaxxers do in times like this? Will they avoid vaccinations during a pandemic? Or are they not that consistent?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on March 05, 2020, 05:03:22 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 05, 2020, 04:57:47 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 04:03:19 AM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 04:00:05 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 03:31:31 AM

[. . .]

My point is not that we shouldn't be testing more. We definitely should be. How else are we going to contain the outbreak if we don't test?

[. . .]


The same way people have contained contagious diseases for centuries: self-quarantine.

So, you are suggesting that anyone and everyone who has cold and flu-like symptoms stay home? Well, I suppose that could work if we had more paid sick leave, but ha ha, we don't.

Here's the xkcd (https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/self_isolate.png) take on this.

On a tangential note- Does anyone know what anti-vaxxers do in times like this? Will they avoid vaccinations during a pandemic? Or are they not that consistent?
.

There was a pocket of religious based anti vaxxers in my area.  When there was a measles outbreak in their communuty, they lined up pretty quick....
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on March 05, 2020, 05:31:30 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on March 05, 2020, 05:03:22 AM
Quote
On a tangential note- Does anyone know what anti-vaxxers do in times like this? Will they avoid vaccinations during a pandemic? Or are they not that consistent?
.

There was a pocket of religious based anti vaxxers in my area.  When there was a measles outbreak in their community, they lined up pretty quick....

I'm curious; do you know if they were against vaccines in general, or just specific ones like HPV?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 05, 2020, 05:31:37 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 04:03:19 AM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 04:00:05 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 03:31:31 AM

[. . .]

My point is not that we shouldn't be testing more. We definitely should be. How else are we going to contain the outbreak if we don't test?

[. . .]


The same way people have contained contagious diseases for centuries: self-quarantine.

So, you are suggesting that anyone and everyone who has cold and flu-like symptoms stay home? Well, I suppose that could work if we had more paid sick leave, but ha ha, we don't.

I've wondered about this sort of guidance too. I suppose as an adjunct, I have sort of light, unofficial sick leave. If I get sick I can just write my chair, cancel class and I don't lose any pay. But I have a kid in daycare, if I cancelled class every time I had sort of a gross cold, I'd probably be cancelling a class at least every three weeks. The distinction I really make is between the kind of sick where I know that once I start lecturing I'll forget about it, vs the kind where in the middle of the lecture I'm thinking "oh man, I feel like garbage. When is this over."

I saw an op ed with a guy on the Diamond Princess who owned a small business and said that for him it had been pretty mild and that if he had gotten this in the course of his normal life he probably would have just gone to work since it really didn't feel much worse than just a bad cold. It just seems like it probably isn't practicable to be telling people that if they have minor cold symptoms they should stay home if everything is still open. If I'm not supposed to come in because I have a sore throat we should probably not be having class.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 05, 2020, 05:34:09 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on March 05, 2020, 05:03:22 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 05, 2020, 04:57:47 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 04:03:19 AM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 04:00:05 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 03:31:31 AM

[. . .]

My point is not that we shouldn't be testing more. We definitely should be. How else are we going to contain the outbreak if we don't test?

[. . .]


The same way people have contained contagious diseases for centuries: self-quarantine.

So, you are suggesting that anyone and everyone who has cold and flu-like symptoms stay home? Well, I suppose that could work if we had more paid sick leave, but ha ha, we don't.

Here's the xkcd (https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/self_isolate.png) take on this.

On a tangential note- Does anyone know what anti-vaxxers do in times like this? Will they avoid vaccinations during a pandemic? Or are they not that consistent?
.

There was a pocket of religious based anti vaxxers in my area.  When there was a measles outbreak in their communuty, they lined up pretty quick....

Hmm, if you'r referring to Orthodox Jewish communities in certain areas, it isn't really accurate to describe the opposition as religious. It was more that in some particular cultural contexts, anti vax movements got a lot of currency. The actual religious authorities were never involved and mostly encouraged vaccinations once it became clear there was an issue.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on March 05, 2020, 05:45:56 AM
Quote from: Caracal on March 05, 2020, 05:34:09 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on March 05, 2020, 05:03:22 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 05, 2020, 04:57:47 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 04:03:19 AM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 04:00:05 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 03:31:31 AM

[. . .]

My point is not that we shouldn't be testing more. We definitely should be. How else are we going to contain the outbreak if we don't test?

[. . .]


The same way people have contained contagious diseases for centuries: self-quarantine.

So, you are suggesting that anyone and everyone who has cold and flu-like symptoms stay home? Well, I suppose that could work if we had more paid sick leave, but ha ha, we don't.

Here's the xkcd (https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/self_isolate.png) take on this.

On a tangential note- Does anyone know what anti-vaxxers do in times like this? Will they avoid vaccinations during a pandemic? Or are they not that consistent?
.

There was a pocket of religious based anti vaxxers in my area.  When there was a measles outbreak in their communuty, they lined up pretty quick....

Hmm, if you'r referring to Orthodox Jewish communities in certain areas, it isn't really accurate to describe the opposition as religious. It was more that in some particular cultural contexts, anti vax movements got a lot of currency. The actual religious authorities were never involved and mostly encouraged vaccinations once it became clear there was an issue.

No, a different group.  I don't really know their specific reasons, perhaps it was not entirely religious.  Regardless, they changed their tune pretty quick when it was in their own back yard.

As far as I know, they were against all vaccines.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on March 05, 2020, 06:11:09 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 05, 2020, 04:57:47 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 04:03:19 AM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 04:00:05 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 05, 2020, 03:31:31 AM

[. . .]

My point is not that we shouldn't be testing more. We definitely should be. How else are we going to contain the outbreak if we don't test?

[. . .]


The same way people have contained contagious diseases for centuries: self-quarantine.

So, you are suggesting that anyone and everyone who has cold and flu-like symptoms stay home? Well, I suppose that could work if we had more paid sick leave, but ha ha, we don't.

Here's the xkcd (https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/self_isolate.png) take on this.

[. . .]

Well that pretty much describes me to a T.

Generally, to minimize spread of head colds and influenza, anyone with symptoms should not be at work or school -- especially if one of those symptoms is fever, or if leaving the house means close contact with vulnerable populations (elderly, immune suppressed, etc.). We all know that is usually far from common practice. But it is effective when people do isolate themselves.

There are K-12 schools in the USA and other countries that are simply shutting down for an indefinite period because of possible contact between pupils or employees and people who possibly have Covid-19. It's a smart attempt at preemption. Previously isolation has reduced the spread of smallpox, polio, and Ebola. I just wish people would use this strategy for the common, non-dread risk illnesses like head colds.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on March 05, 2020, 06:16:32 AM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 06:11:09 AM

Generally, to minimize spread of head colds and influenza, anyone with symptoms should not be at work or school -- especially if one of those symptoms is fever, or if leaving the house means close contact with vulnerable populations (elderly, immune suppressed, etc.). We all know that is usually far from common practice. But it is effective when people do isolate themselves.

There are K-12 schools in the USA and other countries that are simply shutting down for an indefinite period because of possible contact between pupils or employees and people who possibly have Covid-19. It's a smart attempt at preemption.

But it's totally unsustainable in the long term. Unless there's a current spike in cases in a particular area, how are they going to make the decision to re-open? If there are no current cases, what's the metric they are using to evaluate the risks? And how long until the next similarly dangerous factor is on the horizon?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on March 05, 2020, 06:56:54 AM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 06:11:09 AM
There are K-12 schools in the USA and other countries that are simply shutting down for an indefinite period because of possible contact between pupils or employees and people who possibly have Covid-19. It's a smart attempt at preemption. Previously isolation has reduced the spread of smallpox, polio, and Ebola. I just wish people would use this strategy for the common, non-dread risk illnesses like head colds.
This seems like a terrible policy. On top of marshwiggle's concern that there's no natural end, this imposes a big burden on parents who now need to find caretakers. A likely outcome is that grandparents will look after the kids... but, of course, the elderly are the group most susceptible to adverse health outcomes if they get infected. Kids (and non-elderly adults), on the other hand, seem to recover pretty easily. So this may reduce the number of infections/cases, while simultaneously driving up the number of deaths.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on March 05, 2020, 07:05:21 AM
Quote from: pigou on March 05, 2020, 06:56:54 AM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 06:11:09 AM
There are K-12 schools in the USA and other countries that are simply shutting down for an indefinite period because of possible contact between pupils or employees and people who possibly have Covid-19. It's a smart attempt at preemption. Previously isolation has reduced the spread of smallpox, polio, and Ebola. I just wish people would use this strategy for the common, non-dread risk illnesses like head colds.
This seems like a terrible policy. On top of marshwiggle's concern that there's no natural end, this imposes a big burden on parents who now need to find caretakers.

And working single parents with no family close by, i.e. some of the most vulnerable already, will probably have to resort to all kinds of precarious arrangements....indefinitely.

Quote
A likely outcome is that grandparents will look after the kids... but, of course, the elderly are the group most susceptible to adverse health outcomes if they get infected. Kids (and non-elderly adults), on the other hand, seem to recover pretty easily. So this may reduce the number of infections/cases, while simultaneously driving up the number of deaths.

And places where a bunch of kids are being taken care of together, cases will cluster in these childcare settings with no consistent procedures in place rather than in schools where protocols can be enforced.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 05, 2020, 08:19:28 AM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 06:11:09 AM


Generally, to minimize spread of head colds and influenza, anyone with symptoms should not be at work or school -- especially if one of those symptoms is fever, or if leaving the house means close contact with vulnerable populations (elderly, immune suppressed, etc.). We all know that is usually far from common practice. But it is effective when people do isolate themselves.

There are K-12 schools in the USA and other countries that are simply shutting down for an indefinite period because of possible contact between pupils or employees and people who possibly have Covid-19. It's a smart attempt at preemption. Previously isolation has reduced the spread of smallpox, polio, and Ebola. I just wish people would use this strategy for the common, non-dread risk illnesses like head colds.

Again, if you're talking about the flu, absolutely. I really can't see how this is feasible for colds. Sure, if you have a cold and you have the sort of job where you can work from home for the day without a lot of disruption, that's probably sensible and more comfortable. But, as a college professor, I just can't cancel class every time I have a cold. With a kid in daycare, I'd never be in class.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: magnemite on March 05, 2020, 10:26:11 AM
As I sneeze out of control because of tree pollen, and blow my nose, etc, I'm getting the "stink-eye" from some folks...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on March 05, 2020, 10:49:27 AM
Quote from: magnemite on March 05, 2020, 10:26:11 AM
As I sneeze out of control because of tree pollen, and blow my nose, etc, I'm getting the "stink-eye" from some folks...
Better than what happened to my Chinese friend today: someone yelled "get out of the way, Corona" to her on public transit. Racists being racist, example #infinity.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: magnemite on March 05, 2020, 10:55:19 AM
Quote from: pigou on March 05, 2020, 10:49:27 AM
Quote from: magnemite on March 05, 2020, 10:26:11 AM
As I sneeze out of control because of tree pollen, and blow my nose, etc, I'm getting the "stink-eye" from some folks...
Better than what happened to my Chinese friend today: someone yelled "get out of the way, Corona" to her on public transit. Racists being racist, example #infinity.

Yes, and I am sorry but not shocked to hear that. As I was posting, it had occurred to me that the ability to sneeze in public w/o being tarred and feathered is a manifestation of white privilege in this situation.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on March 05, 2020, 10:59:33 AM
Quote from: magnemite on March 05, 2020, 10:55:19 AM
Quote from: pigou on March 05, 2020, 10:49:27 AM
Quote from: magnemite on March 05, 2020, 10:26:11 AM
As I sneeze out of control because of tree pollen, and blow my nose, etc, I'm getting the "stink-eye" from some folks...
Better than what happened to my Chinese friend today: someone yelled "get out of the way, Corona" to her on public transit. Racists being racist, example #infinity.

Yes, and I am sorry but not shocked to hear that. As I was posting, it had occurred to me that the ability to sneeze in public w/o being tarred and feathered is a manifestation of white privilege in this situation.

Sorry, this came across as critical of your post -- and it was definitely not meant to be!

It was just meant to provide an additional anecdote of how fear of disease is bringing out the worst in people.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: magnemite on March 05, 2020, 11:13:35 AM
Quote from: pigou on March 05, 2020, 10:59:33 AM
Quote from: magnemite on March 05, 2020, 10:55:19 AM
Quote from: pigou on March 05, 2020, 10:49:27 AM
Quote from: magnemite on March 05, 2020, 10:26:11 AM
As I sneeze out of control because of tree pollen, and blow my nose, etc, I'm getting the "stink-eye" from some folks...
Better than what happened to my Chinese friend today: someone yelled "get out of the way, Corona" to her on public transit. Racists being racist, example #infinity.

Yes, and I am sorry but not shocked to hear that. As I was posting, it had occurred to me that the ability to sneeze in public w/o being tarred and feathered is a manifestation of white privilege in this situation.

Sorry, this came across as critical of your post -- and it was definitely not meant to be!

It was just meant to provide an additional anecdote of how fear of disease is bringing out the worst in people.

Do not be sorry- I did not take that as criticism- I was just pointing out that I too was recognizing some of the racist manifestations of reactions.

Also, it's not easy to not touch your face, especially when having allergies...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on March 05, 2020, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: magnemite on March 05, 2020, 10:26:11 AM
As I sneeze out of control because of tree pollen, and blow my nose, etc, I'm getting the "stink-eye" from some folks...

One good thing about living in "flyover country" is that you're still assumed when you cough to have simple cold, sinus, etc.  People around here are still figuring that the hoofbeats they hear are from horses, not zebras with Covid-19.

Although in my case a persistent minor sinus drainage cough has people at work starting to wondering whether that lung I punctured last summer is broken again.  I know now what a busted lung feels like, and this isn't it!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on March 05, 2020, 02:13:38 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 05, 2020, 06:16:32 AM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 06:11:09 AM

Generally, to minimize spread of head colds and influenza, anyone with symptoms should not be at work or school -- especially if one of those symptoms is fever, or if leaving the house means close contact with vulnerable populations (elderly, immune suppressed, etc.). We all know that is usually far from common practice. But it is effective when people do isolate themselves.

There are K-12 schools in the USA and other countries that are simply shutting down for an indefinite period because of possible contact between pupils or employees and people who possibly have Covid-19. It's a smart attempt at preemption.

But it's totally unsustainable in the long term. Unless there's a current spike in cases in a particular area, how are they going to make the decision to re-open? If there are no current cases, what's the metric they are using to evaluate the risks? And how long until the next similarly dangerous factor is on the horizon?

You might want to pose this question to the Iowa Board of Regents, which cancelled all university-sponsored international travel for at least the next 30 days.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: magnemite on March 05, 2020, 02:39:40 PM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 02:13:38 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 05, 2020, 06:16:32 AM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 06:11:09 AM

Generally, to minimize spread of head colds and influenza, anyone with symptoms should not be at work or school -- especially if one of those symptoms is fever, or if leaving the house means close contact with vulnerable populations (elderly, immune suppressed, etc.). We all know that is usually far from common practice. But it is effective when people do isolate themselves.

There are K-12 schools in the USA and other countries that are simply shutting down for an indefinite period because of possible contact between pupils or employees and people who possibly have Covid-19. It's a smart attempt at preemption.

But it's totally unsustainable in the long term. Unless there's a current spike in cases in a particular area, how are they going to make the decision to re-open? If there are no current cases, what's the metric they are using to evaluate the risks? And how long until the next similarly dangerous factor is on the horizon?

You might want to pose this question to the Iowa Board of Regents, which cancelled all university-sponsored international travel for at least the next 30 days.

the impacts on folks doing research in foreign lands will be fun to sort out. What do they think will change after 30 days?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 05, 2020, 03:11:44 PM
I think, as pundits and the WHO are saying, the situation is simply unprecedented. Will a successful treatment or a vaccine be developed quickly, before people get tired of being so cautious? Will we simply accept that the virus will race through the population and kill 3.4% (latest WHO figures) of us? Will at-risk people hunker down while everyone else relaxes and goes about their normal business?  We simply don't have a blueprint for it because the last time this happened — an easily-transmitted disease with enough power to kill people but not enough to keep sufferers from travelling widely and spreading it — the last time this happened, in 1918, the world was less interconnected, and despite that it was a disaster. What level of caution is optimum, and for how long?  We have no useful precedents.  At what point do you say, "I'm sick of not travelling, I'm going to resume business as usual, and if my elderly parents catch it from me, oh well"?  Or do you say, "I'm sick of not travelling, but it's been two years and I'm feeling really restless, so despite the fact that I'm immune-compromised, I'm going to throw caution to the winds"?  We'll see.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on March 05, 2020, 06:27:33 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on March 05, 2020, 03:11:44 PM
I think, as pundits and the WHO are saying, the situation is simply unprecedented. Will a successful treatment or a vaccine be developed quickly, before people get tired of being so cautious?
I think WHO's messaging here is really counter-productive. Yeah, it's "unprecedented" -- but qualitatively, it's not all that different from the swine flu, the bird flu, or SARS. There are differences in transmission rates, variability of symptoms, etc, but it's not like people didn't freak out just as much about these other things.

QuoteWe simply don't have a blueprint for it because the last time this happened — an easily-transmitted disease with enough power to kill people but not enough to keep sufferers from travelling widely and spreading it — the last time this happened, in 1918, the world was less interconnected, and despite that it was a disaster.
That was also a time when washing your hands just wasn't the norm, not even in hospitals. That didn't become a widespread thing until the 1980s -- and even now, hand hygiene in hospitals often leaves something to be desired. There are numerous clinical trials trying to improve adherence... and that's among the people who (1) should really know better, and (2) where transmitting infections to patients has a much higher chance of leading to death.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 05, 2020, 07:14:48 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on March 05, 2020, 03:11:44 PM
I think, as pundits and the WHO are saying, the situation is simply unprecedented. Will a successful treatment or a vaccine be developed quickly, before people get tired of being so cautious? Will we simply accept that the virus will race through the population and kill 3.4% (latest WHO figures) of us? Will at-risk people hunker down while everyone else relaxes and goes about their normal business?  We simply don't have a blueprint for it because the last time this happened — an easily-transmitted disease with enough power to kill people but not enough to keep sufferers from travelling widely and spreading it — the last time this happened, in 1918, the world was less interconnected, and despite that it was a disaster. What level of caution is optimum, and for how long?  We have no useful precedents.  At what point do you say, "I'm sick of not travelling, I'm going to resume business as usual, and if my elderly parents catch it from me, oh well"?  Or do you say, "I'm sick of not travelling, but it's been two years and I'm feeling really restless, so despite the fact that I'm immune-compromised, I'm going to throw caution to the winds"?  We'll see.

Well, it isn't going to be Spanish Flu level bad. The WHO isn't really an estimate of the actual mortality, its just a simple division of deaths by diagnosed cases. That's all it is supposed to be. It doesn't account on the numerator for people who haven't died yet but will, and on the denominator it doesn't count all the people who have mild or asymptomatic cases. In Korea, for example where they have been testing really extensively, right now the rate is like. .6%. Doesn't seem like we are going to know this for a while.

As for the rest, well, who knows. But, this article lays out possibilities. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/02/how-is-coronavirus-outbreak-going-end-heres-how-similar-epidemics-played-out/ Basically, it doesn't seem like this is going to be a multi year type thing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 05, 2020, 08:09:10 PM
Well, the Spanish flu death rate appears to have been around 2.5%. Maybe our current estimate of 3.4% is overblown — it's too early to tell. But we travel a lot more now, and there are more of us. So I don't think it's impossible that the situation could be similar. The U.S. hospital system isn't well set up for significant numbers of people needing intensive care or ventilator support at the same time, so that's another drawback — if the system is overwhelmed, some people who might be saved won't be. But really it doesn't matter whether the optimists are right or the pessimists are right, because time will tell.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on March 06, 2020, 06:18:15 AM
MIT has suspended all official international travel. "This includes any travel associated with one's scholarly activities as an MIT employee, even travel funded by a government grant, foundation, company or other university."

The decision was reached based on advice from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

Quote from: magnemite on March 05, 2020, 02:39:40 PM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 02:13:38 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 05, 2020, 06:16:32 AM
Quote from: spork on March 05, 2020, 06:11:09 AM

Generally, to minimize spread of head colds and influenza, anyone with symptoms should not be at work or school -- especially if one of those symptoms is fever, or if leaving the house means close contact with vulnerable populations (elderly, immune suppressed, etc.). We all know that is usually far from common practice. But it is effective when people do isolate themselves.

There are K-12 schools in the USA and other countries that are simply shutting down for an indefinite period because of possible contact between pupils or employees and people who possibly have Covid-19. It's a smart attempt at preemption.

But it's totally unsustainable in the long term. Unless there's a current spike in cases in a particular area, how are they going to make the decision to re-open? If there are no current cases, what's the metric they are using to evaluate the risks? And how long until the next similarly dangerous factor is on the horizon?

You might want to pose this question to the Iowa Board of Regents, which cancelled all university-sponsored international travel for at least the next 30 days.

the impacts on folks doing research in foreign lands will be fun to sort out. What do they think will change after 30 days?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 06, 2020, 10:40:50 AM
University of Washington has suspended in-person classes and exams for the rest of winter quarter, due to an infected person on campus:

https://komonews.com/news/local/uw-suspends-classes-finals-on-campus-starting-monday?fbclid=IwAR30Lw-mGRP6rPyQmlqKOhVNlfxNnu--XGWSIj6Ze46xOKnYWdrETT99CXY

"We plan to resume normal class operations when spring quarter begins March 30, pending public health guidance."

Note: "Husky athletics events will proceed as scheduled."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on March 06, 2020, 10:46:48 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on March 06, 2020, 10:40:50 AM
University of Washington has suspended in-person classes and exams for the rest of winter quarter, due to an infected person on campus:

https://komonews.com/news/local/uw-suspends-classes-finals-on-campus-starting-monday?fbclid=IwAR30Lw-mGRP6rPyQmlqKOhVNlfxNnu--XGWSIj6Ze46xOKnYWdrETT99CXY

"We plan to resume normal class operations when spring quarter begins March 30, pending public health guidance."

Note: "Husky athletics events will proceed as scheduled."

That must be because athletic events don't put people into the same crowded spaces with close physical contact that classes do and have no risk of bodily fluid transfer, etc.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Wahoo Redux on March 06, 2020, 12:03:40 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on March 06, 2020, 10:40:50 AM
University of Washington has suspended in-person classes and exams for the rest of winter quarter, due to an infected person on campus:

https://komonews.com/news/local/uw-suspends-classes-finals-on-campus-starting-monday?fbclid=IwAR30Lw-mGRP6rPyQmlqKOhVNlfxNnu--XGWSIj6Ze46xOKnYWdrETT99CXY

"We plan to resume normal class operations when spring quarter begins March 30, pending public health guidance."

Note: "Husky athletics events will proceed as scheduled."

Well, we can't let something as minor as a pandemic impede the important stuff, now can we?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 06, 2020, 12:06:17 PM
QuoteQuote from: Hegemony on Today at 10:40:50 AM
University of Washington has suspended in-person classes and exams for the rest of winter quarter, due to an infected person on campus:

https://komonews.com/news/local/uw-suspends-classes-finals-on-campus-starting-monday?fbclid=IwAR30Lw-mGRP6rPyQmlqKOhVNlfxNnu--XGWSIj6Ze46xOKnYWdrETT99CXY

"We plan to resume normal class operations when spring quarter begins March 30, pending public health guidance."

Note: "Husky athletics events will proceed as scheduled."

That must be because athletic events don't put people into the same crowded spaces with close physical contact that classes do and have no risk of bodily fluid transfer, etc.

2 things...
1.  Exams make students stressed and therefore susceptible to illness

2.  You can always retake a test/class, you can not retake a GAME (or party). 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 06, 2020, 01:23:29 PM

Quote
Note: "Husky athletics events will proceed as scheduled."

Quote
That must be because athletic events don't put people into the same crowded spaces with close physical contact that classes do and have no risk of bodily fluid transfer, etc.

Well, except for the audience being in close physical contact with each other, and in much greater numbers than in a classroom.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bio-nonymous on March 06, 2020, 01:59:42 PM
Just got a notice the Experimental Biology Meeting was canceled this year (supposed to have been in San Diego April 4th-7th) because of the outbreak. This a huge meeting. IT makes me wonder what happens if the virus doesn't fizzle out over the next few months, my University is already asking us to reconsider ALL upcoming travel--and refusing to pay for travel to many areas with active outbreaks (makes sense that part!). The 3.6% death rate is 36 times higher than the flu--without a vaccine perhaps all the caution is more reasonable than I had first thought...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Wahoo Redux on March 06, 2020, 03:13:31 PM
L.A. Times (https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-05/flu-killed-more-people-coronavirus-covid-19) has a pretty cogent discussion.

Quote
No vaccines, no medications
Humanity has been contending with seasonal flu for centuries, so scientists have had a long time to study the influenza strains that circulate in the winter months.

This research has led to the development of annual vaccines that protect large swaths of the population from getting the flu and reduce its severity in those who do become infected. In addition, there are medications available that can treat influenza symptoms and sometimes shorten the duration of the illness.

Also, when individuals come down with the flu, their bodies build up immunity. That means not everyone who is exposed to the flu virus gets sick.

But the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 has been in existence for only about three months, so there is no natural immunity in the population.

And unfortunately, there isn't a vaccine that can pick up the slack. Although several experimental vaccines are in the works, none will be ready to roll out for at least 18 months...

Quote
For public health officials, another cause for concern is the lack of information about how easily the coronavirus spreads.

Quote
Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Among other things, it implies that an infected person can spread the virus to someone who is more than six feet away, "so that is also part of the rationale for keeping people at a distance from one another."

And researchers are still trying to determine how long the new virus can live on surfaces like handrails, doorknobs and elevator buttons that may be touched by hundreds or even thousands of people each day.

It isn't yet clear whether the coronavirus spreads as easily as the flu, but it has moved quickly. It has reached six continents in a matter of weeks with confirmed cases of COVID-19 in 89 countries and territories. Some of those patients became infected despite having no contact with anyone known to be exposed to the virus.

Higher fatality rate than seasonal flu

And here's another reason health officials are sounding the alarm: It appears that COVID-19 has a higher fatality rate than the flu.

Although four out of five cases of COVID-19 result in mild illness, the director-general of the World Health Organization said this week that the mortality rate of COVID-19 could be as high as 3.4%.

That would be higher than the mortality rate of the 1918 Spanish flu, which is estimated to have killed at least 50 million people worldwide over two years. Among those who were infected, the death rate was around 2.5%.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ab_grp on March 06, 2020, 03:14:22 PM
Our large national meeting is in April in San Francisco.  It has not been canceled yet, though I pretty much expect it to be.  My institution has already canceled all non-essential business travel for the foreseeable future, and we usually send a couple hundred researchers to that conference.  Maybe there will be more interest in and support for virtual meetings and conferences at my own institution and beyond. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 06, 2020, 05:46:58 PM
Our campus is in a flurry of preparation to move courses online, figure out other workarounds, and reduce the number of times large groups of people have to meet.  So to learn how to implement this, they have called a large meeting. We're all supposed to show up to this large meeting to learn how we should avoid large meetings. I think I will inaugurate my avoidance of large meetings by avoiding this one.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on March 06, 2020, 07:39:27 PM
A major conference for which I serve on the steering committee is supposed to start a week from Sunday. That means at least some preparation will happen next Thursday. The more we talk about it, the less I think anyone will show up. Several major companies in our industry have issued a global travel ban for their employees; violators won't have their travel covered, and will have to self-quarantine for 14 days upon return. Whether or not that's a reasonable response, the actual conference attendees are not in a position to argue with their senior management.

So we're discussing going to a virtual conference. The thing is, we can't possibly set that up in time to match the existing schedule. It's a mess. A no-win situation.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on March 06, 2020, 10:42:18 PM
Sorry to hear of that. A mess, indeed.

Out of curiosity, though, can you say what steps you'd take, and in what order/time frame, to move a conference online?

That would be useful knowledge.

I can see how to move a class to a CMS-supported online format, but how would you do that with a conference?

I guess you could start by having everyone tape a reading/talk-through of their papers, but what then?

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on March 07, 2020, 05:48:46 AM
Quote from: mamselle on March 06, 2020, 10:42:18 PM
Sorry to hear of that. A mess, indeed.

Out of curiosity, though, can you say what steps you'd take, and in what order/time frame, to move a conference online?

That would be useful knowledge.

I can see how to move a class to a CMS-supported online format, but how would you do that with a conference?

I guess you could start by having everyone tape a reading/talk-through of their papers, but what then?

M.

That's about all we've seriously discussed. The problem with that is, it doesn't capture all of the conference experience. Actually viewing the presentations is, for me, a small part of the reason I attend. I'll let you know what else is discussed if we go down that road.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ab_grp on March 07, 2020, 08:13:14 AM
Our national conference just canceled, as expected.  It sounds as though some parts may be conducted virtually, and others may be postponed until the fall.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 07, 2020, 09:40:37 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 06, 2020, 03:13:31 PM

Although four out of five cases of COVID-19 result in mild illness, the director-general of the World Health Organization said this week that the mortality rate of COVID-19 could be as high as 3.4%.

That would be higher than the mortality rate of the 1918 Spanish flu, which is estimated to have killed at least 50 million people worldwide over two years. Among those who were infected, the death rate was around 2.5%.
[/quote]

This isn't to dispute the rest, but very crucial to understand that number. It is not an estimate of the mortality rate of either people who get it or people who show symptoms. It is just number of deaths divided by confirmed cases. Full stop.
Read this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/06/why-its-so-hard-pin-down-risk-dying-coronavirus/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on March 07, 2020, 09:54:16 AM
Anyone managing increasing anxiety over this?  I think I need to take some serious breaks from reading news.  There are constant updates and it's hard to put it all in proper context.  Distracting me from getting things done.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on March 07, 2020, 10:52:47 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 07, 2020, 09:54:16 AM
Anyone managing increasing anxiety over this?  I think I need to take some serious breaks from reading news.  There are constant updates and it's hard to put it all in proper context.  Distracting me from getting things done.
Don't follow the "breaking" news and anticipate that this epidemic will be active for at least a few more months. Epidemics are a marathon, not a sprint, even though it's being covered like the latter. I suspect we'll start seeing much less news coverage by the end of the month. Something else will have captured the news cycle by then. See also Avian flu, swine flu, Ebola... news coverage and panic unfold largely the same way.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on March 07, 2020, 03:52:25 PM
Thanks very much, pigou, that helps.

Recent mass media articles on keeping calm during this time suggest some doable actions:  stay physically and mentally healthy, rely only on credible news sources, keep things in perspective (most people with the virus recover), and take breaks from following the news.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on March 07, 2020, 04:17:34 PM
Here's the effective behavior to lower the probability of getting infectd oneself, from the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/prevention-treatment.html

Best of luck to all.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on March 07, 2020, 06:00:09 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 07, 2020, 03:52:25 PM
Thanks very much, pigou, that helps.

Recent mass media articles on keeping calm during this time suggest some doable actions:  stay physically and mentally healthy, rely only on credible news sources, keep things in perspective (most people with the virus recover), and take breaks from following the news.
I also think the "negative" tests give us meaningful information. The UK tested 20,000 people and came up with just over 200 positive results. That may well include a lot of hypochondriacs who, despite having no risk factors, think their sneezing means they're about to die from the coronavirus. Don't be like those people.

Also, don't be like the government of Italy, which may be about to quarantine a quarter of its population: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/italy-coronavirus-milan-lombardy-lockdowns/2020/03/07/403fcea2-60b3-11ea-ac50-18701e14e06d_story.html

Quote
ROME — Italy's government on Saturday considered dramatically expanding its northern lockdown zone to encompass up to 15 million people — about a quarter of the country's population — in an extraordinary bid to slow the spread of the coronavirus, according to a draft proposal reviewed by The Washington Post. [...]

The measures would at least temporarily transform the nation, locking off much of the northern part of the country, with people allowed to exit or enter Lombardy and 11 northern provinces only for emergency reasons or for essential work that cannot be delayed.

The changes would cut off the daily high-speed rail connections between Milan and Rome, bring an absolute halt to tourism in Venice, and essentially paralyze Italy's economic heartland.

It would also signal that Western democratic nations are willing to drastically restrict freedoms as they contend with major outbreaks.

I just can't grasp the insanity of this action. The Italian government has always been pretty dysfunctional and their economy was going to do poorly no matter what... but it seems like their politicians have decided a show of strength is what they need and they might as well give up on things like employment, growth, and liberalism.

While I'd not generally recommend people take any action beyond basic hygiene... if you lived in one of those areas, I'd absolutely recommend getting out ASAP (and perhaps getting out of Italy entirely). Governments have massive powers when it comes to stopping the outbreak of diseases and the mere existence of such a draft proposal suggests Italy may be considering using them. It's all fun and games until you end up on the wrong side of that.

In the US, for what it's worth, the federal government can deploy the military to enforce a quarantine. Moreover, the standing rules for the use of force would apply and allow the armed forces to use deadly force against anyone trying to leave a quarantine. That's at the complete discretion of the president and not subject to Congressional review or authorization. If you want something to be anxious about, let it be this -- not the virus.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on March 07, 2020, 07:18:21 PM
I think the time has come to remember this: All is well! Remain calm! (https://youtu.be/zDAmPIq29ro)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 07, 2020, 08:35:48 PM
Well, I'm not all that displeased at the Italians setting a quarantine. Some larger effort needs to happen, and that appears to be it. The WHO praised China's success in slowing down the epidemic considerably, and strict quarantines were at the heart of it. To those who would say, "Everyone's going to get it anyway, so quarantines are useless" — they are still useful because they slow the rate of transmission so that hospitals can cope with the surge. Although "only" 1-3.4% of people appear to die from it, as many as 14% of those who contract it need to be hospitalized, and 5% of the total will need to be in intensive care with ventilators and other equipment in limited supply. So unless we slow the rate of transmission appreciably, many people will die simply through lack of available beds and equipment in hospitals. The first line of defense is tracing contact lines. When the transmission gets too wide to make that feasible, slowing social contact is the next and in fact only line of defense, until such day as better treatments and vaccines are developed. It's fine and dandy if people want to elude the quarantine — unless they happen to have the disease. Then their "freedom" spreads it more widely. At the moment in the U.S., infection rates are doubling every 6 days. Coming soon to a crowded venue near you.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on March 08, 2020, 03:53:50 AM
Taiwan's response to Covid-19 (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762689)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on March 08, 2020, 08:12:10 AM
Thanks for that.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on March 08, 2020, 08:41:30 AM
Do any of the folks here with medical/biological/public health connections have information on how long the Covid-19 virus remains active (or "alive") on a dry surface that's at room temperature?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on March 08, 2020, 09:09:57 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on March 07, 2020, 08:35:48 PM
Well, I'm not all that displeased at the Italians setting a quarantine. Some larger effort needs to happen, and that appears to be it. The WHO praised China's success in slowing down the epidemic considerably, and strict quarantines were at the heart of it. To those who would say, "Everyone's going to get it anyway, so quarantines are useless" — they are still useful because they slow the rate of transmission so that hospitals can cope with the surge. Although "only" 1-3.4% of people appear to die from it, as many as 14% of those who contract it need to be hospitalized, and 5% of the total will need to be in intensive care with ventilators and other equipment in limited supply. So unless we slow the rate of transmission appreciably, many people will die simply through lack of available beds and equipment in hospitals. The first line of defense is tracing contact lines. When the transmission gets too wide to make that feasible, slowing social contact is the next and in fact only line of defense, until such day as better treatments and vaccines are developed. It's fine and dandy if people want to elude the quarantine — unless they happen to have the disease. Then their "freedom" spreads it more widely. At the moment in the U.S., infection rates are doubling every 6 days. Coming soon to a crowded venue near you.

Plus, there's the knock-on effects - if hospitals and the healthcare system generally are overwhelmed, then cancer patients, accident victims, women in labor, etc will not get timely/adequate/any treatment. It's eminently sensible to slow down the spread, even if it had no effect on the final tally of cases. Quarantines and similar measures are pretty much all that's available aside from hygiene.
Plus, the experiences of China and Singapore show that drastic measures are effective against Covid-19. The experiences of countries that did nothing until they faced a full-blown epidemic - Italy (didn't quarantine folks repatriated from China) and Iran (they at first said they didn't believe in quarantines), show that there's a high cost to not taking drastic measures early. The reluctance of many countries to impose any restrictions on people coming from Italy (unlike the much greater willingness to impose restrictions on people coming from China or Iran) quickly spread it across the world, again illustrating the difference between imposing restrictions and doing nothing.
Yes, the economic cost of drastic measures is massive, but there would also be a massive cost to the healthcare system collapsing - and Italian officials are saying that the healthcare system in Lombardy is close to collapse.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: onthefringe on March 08, 2020, 09:47:08 AM
Quote from: spork on March 08, 2020, 08:41:30 AM
Do any of the folks here with medical/biological/public health connections have information on how long the Covid-19 virus remains active (or "alive") on a dry surface that's at room temperature?

I am not an immunologist, but I've done some reading in the scientific literature.

I don't think we really know for this particular strain, but we might be able to make predictions based on other coronaviruses. This review (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828811/) looks at surface survival of several respiratory and enteric viruses on fomites (inanimate objects that can transmit infections). They note that a multitude of factors including temperature, humidity, and UV exposure affect viability. Some studies they cite give other coronaviruses survival periods in the range of 3-12 hours (in contrast, some influenza viruses survive up to  several days in similar conditions). But there's evidence of some coronaviruses being able to survive on a non pourous surface for up to a week given the right conditions. This paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16914034) suggests some respiratory viruses can survive for a few days.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on March 08, 2020, 11:11:08 AM
Quote from: zyzzx on February 28, 2020, 11:42:44 AM
So, I have tried to look for this, and have not found such an analysis, but shouldn't the Diamond Princess cruise ship fiasco give us a pretty definitive idea of the mortality rates (at least for that demographic)? From my understanding of all the news articles, everyone on the ship ended up getting tested, right? So here's a population in which every case, mild/asymptomatic or not, would be caught. So according to the Johns Hopkins website, there were 705 cases, 5 deaths, and 690 cases not yet resolved. So with at least 5 deaths, that's at least 0.7% mortality rate, and that number can only go up. I guess cruise ship passengers likely skew older, but still, this seems like a pretty obvious case study where we really do know the denominator in the mortality rate equation. I am somewhat surprised that these numbers are not discussed more; I hope that some epidemiologists are closely following this population, as it seems like a very useful source of data.

Russell TW, Hellewell J, Jarvis CI, van Zandvoort K, Abbott S, Ratnayake R, CMMID nCov working group, Flasche S, Eggo R, Edmunds WJ, & Kucharski AJ. Estimating the infection and case fatality ratio for COVID-19 using age-adjusted data from the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship.  (http://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/severity/diamond_cruise_cfr_estimates.html) Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases.  Published online 5 March 2020. 

Abstract:
Quote from: Russell et al.Adjusting for delay from confirmation-to-death, we estimated case and infection fatality ratios (CFR, IFR) for COVID-19 on the Diamond Princess ship as 2.3% (0.75%–5.3%) and 1.2% (0.38–2.7%). Comparing deaths onboard with expected deaths based on naive CFR estimates using China data, we estimate IFR and CFR in China to be 0.5% (95% CI: 0.2–1.2%) and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.3–2.4%) respectively.

Note: CFR = # deaths / # of symptomatic cases; IFR = # deaths / # of infections.

Excerpt from discussion:
Quote from: Russell et al.The case fatality ratio is challenging to accurately estimate in real time [8], especially for an infection with attributes similar to SARS-CoV-2, which has a delay of almost two weeks between confirmation and death, strong effects of age-dependence and comorbidities on mortality risk, and likely under-reporting of cases in many settings [6]. Using an age-stratified adjustment, we accounted for changes in known outcomes over time. By applying the method to Diamond Princess data, we focus on a setting that is likely to have lower reporting error because large numbers were tested and the test has high sensitivity.

The average age onboard the ship was 58, so our estimates of cCFR cannot directly be applied to a younger population; we therefore scaled our estimates to obtain values for a population equivalent to those in the early China outbreak. There were some limitations to our analysis. Cruise ship passengers may have a different health status to the general population of their home countries, due to health requirements to embark on a multi-week holiday, or differences related to socio-economic status or comborbities. Deaths only occurred in individuals 70 years or older, so we were not able to generate age-specific cCFRs; the fatality risk may also be influenced by differences in healthcare between countries. Because of likely age-specific differences in reporting, we focused on overall cCFR in China, rather than calculating age-specific cCFRs [7].
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on March 08, 2020, 04:57:50 PM
Anyone have details on the air travel situation to Rome from the USA and back? Asking for an acquaintance. She doesn't want to get stuck in Italy or be put in a quarantine upon returning home.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on March 08, 2020, 05:11:58 PM
QuoteAnyone have details on the air travel situation to Rome from the USA and back? Asking for an acquaintance. She doesn't want to get stuck in Italy or be put in a quarantine upon returning home.

In past years, (in past presidencies), there might have been a centralized State Department advisory page on this (like the M&IE website I referred someone to on another thread recently).

I haven't looked for it, but that's one place to start.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on March 08, 2020, 05:14:36 PM
The reference to an 'average' in the Russell study makes me nervous as I'd expect the population to be strongly bimodal - generally young staff, generally older travelers.

I think Rome is ok but smart traveller in Australia or its equivalent in the US will list the travel restrictions. Also International SOS.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 08, 2020, 05:22:35 PM
Quote from: spork on March 08, 2020, 04:57:50 PM
Anyone have details on the air travel situation to Rome from the USA and back? Asking for an acquaintance. She doesn't want to get stuck in Italy or be put in a quarantine upon returning home.

I wouldn't go right now. Rome hasn't had a lot of cases, but that could change quickly. The same, of course, could be said for just about anywhere in the US, but I think the danger of getting stuck is real. It also just seems like it be worth it at this point unless there's a really compelling reason to go. Just doesn't seem like a fun time to be a tourist in Italy, if that's the purpose of the trip, lots of stuff might get shut. If she's doing research, similar problems and concerns.

Of course if she has any medical condition or is older, than she definitely shouldn't go and probably should avoid travel in general...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on March 08, 2020, 06:58:17 PM
Quote from: mamselle on March 08, 2020, 05:11:58 PM
QuoteAnyone have details on the air travel situation to Rome from the USA and back? Asking for an acquaintance. She doesn't want to get stuck in Italy or be put in a quarantine upon returning home.

In past years, (in past presidencies), there might have been a centralized State Department advisory page on this (like the M&IE website I referred someone to on another thread recently).

I haven't looked for it, but that's one place to start.

M.

OK, found it:

Here's the basic site:

   https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories.html/

Here's the travel map (note: the "Do not travel"/red areas don't say why, so they might not all be contaigion-related):

   https://travelmaps.state.gov/TSGMap/

Here's the site for Italy: restrictions are for the north, although I pointed the cursor on Rome and the pop-up was focused on Rome itself, but the "More Info" link took me here):

   https://it.usembassy.gov/covid-19-information/

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on March 09, 2020, 07:38:53 AM
A young woman in our town came home from studying abroad in Italy and brought the virus with her.  The train she took home from Chicago is out of service, being cleaned, and all passengers notified, etc.  She and her family got tested and agreed to in-home quarantine. 

Until the dad and younger sister went to a father-daughter dance on Saturday night.  They also stopped at a private pre-dance party on the way there.

Today, two high schools are closed, with others whose students also went to the party and/or dance telling their students to watch for symptoms, etc.

Not too surprisingly, the patient and her family live in one of the richest suburbs.  So, the rest of us slumming in economically-struggling areas are safe. . . .

. . . .EXCEPT.. . . . my campus traditionally has a number of students who work as valets, housekeepers, bar- and waitstaff at the hotel where the dance was held. 

I'll keep my colorful comments about the dad to myself.  (The patient herself has maintained the quarantine, as have her mother and other family members.)  Once again, the rules and common sense apparently only apply to some of us.  Let it have been one of my students who did such a lame-brained stunt, and all hell would be raining down.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on March 09, 2020, 08:09:06 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on March 09, 2020, 07:38:53 AM
Once again, the rules and common sense apparently only apply to some of us.

A similar thing happened in New Hampshire, a man violated advice to self-quarantine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on March 09, 2020, 08:09:52 AM
    At the medical center where Mr. Buster works they has a similar situation. Sister of an employee at Medical Center came back from Italy and is is self-quarantine. So employee went and hung out with her sister over the weekend. I'm not sure if the sister has any symptoms. Once word of this got out, days later, the medical center acted as fast as they could to isolate the employee and determine a chain of contact.
   People need a review of what the word quarantine actually means.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on March 09, 2020, 08:30:40 AM
Originally from French, "quarrantaine," a 40-day period (like Lent) or distancing and deprivation for the purposes of purification.

I don't know/am too lazy to pull out the OED to look up first uses, etc. but at some point that usage was broadened  to include medical segregation.

I'm sorry these peoples' selfishness is causing such problems.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ergative on March 09, 2020, 09:06:08 AM
Quote from: mamselle on March 09, 2020, 08:30:40 AM
Originally from French, "quarrantaine," a 40-day period (like Lent) or distancing and deprivation for the purposes of purification.

I don't know/am too lazy to pull out the OED to look up first uses, etc. but at some point that usage was broadened  to include medical segregation.

I'm sorry these peoples' selfishness is causing such problems.

M.

In Daniel Defoe's Journal of the Plague Year, he discusses a delay in reported cases between the first few in December 1664 and the later ones in February 1665, and says the following: Now the question seems to lie thus: Where lay the seeds of the infection all this while? How came it to stop so long, and not stop any longer? Either the distemper did not come immediately by contagion from body to body, or, if it did, then a body may be capable to continue infected without the disease discovering itself many days, nay, weeks together; even not a quarantine of days only, but soixantine; not only forty days, but sixty days or longer.

So at the time quarantine had a very specific meaning, not just of medical isolation, but specifically isolation for the period of 40 days--and the morphology of the word was productive enough that it was possible to adjust it to keep the same word form but allow different numbers in the root to indicate different durations of isolation. Defoe wrote the book in 1722, but the OED dates this particular usage back to 1630 in English, and it came from Italian (Italy had a lot of plague outbreaks in the 17th century). There are, of course, other usages that refer to the passage of time, but are unrelated to medical isolation (e.g., penance, a deadline for turning a dower over to a widow, or a place where Christ fasted for 40 days).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on March 09, 2020, 11:09:30 AM
Thanks, yes, that's what I had in mind.

I'm curious, though....Does it actually say, "place" where Christ fasted?

I could understand it saying "a time for fasting," or withdrawal/isolation: that's where the timing for Lent is derived, from the period of temptation between Jesus' baptism and first days of public ministry (Matt. 4: 1-11; Luke 4:2-13--OK, so I have my Bible closer at hand than my OED....sorry!)

But I hadn't heard of there being a place identified for that. Interesting.

When I'm up next (still crutching around) I'll have to see if I can pull the OED down without it falling over on me and look at that further.

Anyway, back to our regularly-scheduled whatever-it-is-we-were-doing.....oh, yeah, still trying to find that colonial gravestone's background info....

ETA: Apropos of this exact discussion, this Tweet--a MS citation on plague isolation in Old England--just showed up in my Twitter feed two minutes later:

   https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FSonja_Drimmer%2Fstatus%2F1237059343343747074&widget=Tweet

M. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ergative on March 09, 2020, 12:54:32 PM
Yes, the place itself:

†1. Christian Church. The place where Jesus fasted for forty days. Obsolete.
c1470   W. Wey Itineraries 14   By yonde ys a wyldernys of quarentyne, Wher Cryst wyth fastyng hys body dyd pyne; In that holy place, as we rede, The deuyl wold had of stonys bred.
c1500   Stations of Jerusalem 780 in C. Horstmann Altengl. Legenden (1881) 2nd Ser. 365/2 (MED)   And after we..turnyd vp to Quryntyne [read Quaryntyne], There Jhesu fastyd xl deys.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on March 09, 2020, 01:07:51 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 09, 2020, 08:09:06 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on March 09, 2020, 07:38:53 AM
Once again, the rules and common sense apparently only apply to some of us.

A similar thing happened in New Hampshire, a man violated advice to self-quarantine.

How exactly does one do this?  Do you just stay in the house and have others deliver food to you?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: wwwdotcom on March 09, 2020, 01:12:33 PM
Quote from: Anselm on March 09, 2020, 01:07:51 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 09, 2020, 08:09:06 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on March 09, 2020, 07:38:53 AM
Once again, the rules and common sense apparently only apply to some of us.

A similar thing happened in New Hampshire, a man violated advice to self-quarantine.

How exactly does one do this?  Do you just stay in the house and have others deliver food to you?

Or eat the food you have in your house.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on March 09, 2020, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: wwwdotcom on March 09, 2020, 01:12:33 PM
Quote from: Anselm on March 09, 2020, 01:07:51 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 09, 2020, 08:09:06 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on March 09, 2020, 07:38:53 AM
Once again, the rules and common sense apparently only apply to some of us.

A similar thing happened in New Hampshire, a man violated advice to self-quarantine.

How exactly does one do this?  Do you just stay in the house and have others deliver food to you?

Or eat the food you have in your house.

Defoe gives examples of this as well.  Really, A Journal of the Plague Year gives a LOT of food for thought about epidemic and pandemic situations.  It's not only a vivid historical novel portrayal of a devastating epidemic, it's also the grandaddy of modern epidemic disaster stories.  You can even see the distant ancestors of all those zombie apocalypse stories of recent years in Defoe's descriptions of people fleeing from shambling, delirious plague victims.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on March 09, 2020, 01:49:48 PM
Eastern Psychological Association meeting, scheduled for Boston this weekend: cancelled this morning.

The head of the NY/NJ Port Authority has tested positive for Covid-19. I think NYC and environs is going to become a mess.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on March 09, 2020, 02:08:33 PM
All of Italy now on lockdown. But per the BBC, that does not apply to foreign nationals. Who are allowed to leave as they please: BA is running a reduced schedule but has not cancelled all flights to Milan...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on March 09, 2020, 02:40:18 PM
Quote from: apl68 on March 09, 2020, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: wwwdotcom on March 09, 2020, 01:12:33 PM
Quote from: Anselm on March 09, 2020, 01:07:51 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 09, 2020, 08:09:06 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on March 09, 2020, 07:38:53 AM
Once again, the rules and common sense apparently only apply to some of us.

A similar thing happened in New Hampshire, a man violated advice to self-quarantine.

How exactly does one do this?  Do you just stay in the house and have others deliver food to you?

Or eat the food you have in your house.

Defoe gives examples of this as well.  Really, A Journal of the Plague Year gives a LOT of food for thought about epidemic and pandemic situations.  It's not only a vivid historical novel portrayal of a devastating epidemic, it's also the grandaddy of modern epidemic disaster stories.  You can even see the distant ancestors of all those zombie apocalypse stories of recent years in Defoe's descriptions of people fleeing from shambling, delirious plague victims.

Yes.

And then there's the Decameron...

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on March 09, 2020, 03:07:46 PM
Quote from: spork on March 09, 2020, 01:49:48 PM
Eastern Psychological Association meeting, scheduled for Boston this weekend: cancelled this morning.

The head of the NY/NJ Port Authority has tested positive for Covid-19. I think NYC and environs is going to become a mess.

IHE had these two articles up:

1. The ACE (Am. Council on Ed.) has cancelled its annual meeting:
   https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/03/09/college-presidents-group-cancels-annual-meeting

2. A roundup of news on higher ed and coronavirus-related issues (including those discussed on threads here):
   https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/03/09/roundup-news-coronavirus-and-higher-ed

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 09, 2020, 03:14:06 PM
Quote from: apl68 on March 09, 2020, 01:36:56 PM

Defoe gives examples of this as well.  Really, A Journal of the Plague Year gives a LOT of food for thought about epidemic and pandemic situations.  It's not only a vivid historical novel portrayal of a devastating epidemic, it's also the grandaddy of modern epidemic disaster stories.  You can even see the distant ancestors of all those zombie apocalypse stories of recent years in Defoe's descriptions of people fleeing from shambling, delirious plague victims.


Ooooh, thanks for the tip! I look forward to reading this!



For my part, it's weird to compare (what looks like) the panic south of the border to the mostly calm take up here. All the American conferences and things are in the process of being cancelled, including well into the summer; so far, it looks like ours aren't. (I'm involved in organizing an American conference in April which isn't yet cancelled, which is also an interesting experience. Not sure we'll make our room numbers, but COVID-19 seems like a good excuse for it.)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: no1capybara on March 09, 2020, 09:17:23 PM
Argh, I can't deal!!

Today was our first day after spring break. My university's computer network has been down for four days but no one is stating why. It was a sunny day so I took the students outside to sit on the lawn and discuss our options for the rest of the semester if we have to move to an online/remote environment. Did I mention that our computer network is down?

The major university in my city just closed for the next three weeks.   My students' anxiety levels are sky high.  This is fun.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on March 09, 2020, 09:42:55 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 09, 2020, 03:14:06 PM
Quote from: apl68 on March 09, 2020, 01:36:56 PM

Defoe gives examples of this as well.  Really, A Journal of the Plague Year gives a LOT of food for thought about epidemic and pandemic situations.  It's not only a vivid historical novel portrayal of a devastating epidemic, it's also the grandaddy of modern epidemic disaster stories.  You can even see the distant ancestors of all those zombie apocalypse stories of recent years in Defoe's descriptions of people fleeing from shambling, delirious plague victims.


Ooooh, thanks for the tip! I look forward to reading this!



For my part, it's weird to compare (what looks like) the panic south of the border to the mostly calm take up here. All the American conferences and things are in the process of being cancelled, including well into the summer; so far, it looks like ours aren't. (I'm involved in organizing an American conference in April which isn't yet cancelled, which is also an interesting experience. Not sure we'll make our room numbers, but COVID-19 seems like a good excuse for it.)

FWIW, the chief health officer in NSW (Australia) recommended that people avoid international travel to all destinations other than Canada and New Zealand. I live in Aus and am currently on a research trip to NZ :)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ergative on March 10, 2020, 01:42:01 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 09, 2020, 03:14:06 PM
Quote from: apl68 on March 09, 2020, 01:36:56 PM

Defoe gives examples of this as well.  Really, A Journal of the Plague Year gives a LOT of food for thought about epidemic and pandemic situations.  It's not only a vivid historical novel portrayal of a devastating epidemic, it's also the grandaddy of modern epidemic disaster stories.  You can even see the distant ancestors of all those zombie apocalypse stories of recent years in Defoe's descriptions of people fleeing from shambling, delirious plague victims.


Ooooh, thanks for the tip! I look forward to reading this!


I was utterly fascinated by this book. The discussion about possible vectors of transmission, rates of infection, psychology of crowds, social and economic ramifications, and so on were really sophisticated. For example, he has a rather ruthless discussion about the quarantine measures: People whose houses were infected were involuntarily shut up, sometimes even with the doors nailed shut, with guards posted to ensure no one got out. He doubts that this prevented the spread of the disease very much (people had all sorts of clever ways of sneaking out), and he thinks it was incredibly cruel to the rest of the household who were quarantined with the sick person, but he grants that it had two advantages: First, that it prevented sick people from rampaging through the streets in delirium, which would have been distressing to the city (not because of the risk of contagion, which was unstoppable with or without rampaging zombies, but because rampaging zombies are bad in general); and second, by setting watchmen to enforce the quarantine provided employment to poor people who would otherwise have starved because all trade stopped during the outbreak. Also, he makes the cruel but accurate point that it was only the fact that so many people died that prevented the poor from starving, since only by reducing their population did it become feasible to feed them; and the reason people were willing to take jobs like collecting and burying the dead--jobs with hideous risks of infection--was because they would starve otherwise, so they were facing death of one sort or another whatever they did.

There are also tons of discussions that preface modern medical knowledge about the spread of diseases: transmission vectors, incubation periods, innaccurate recording keeping (e.g., the death records showed an odd increase in death from regular 'spotted fever' about the time people were worried as to whether there was a plague outbreak; suggesting that early plague deaths were being misrecorded as spotted fever) and how to diagnose it. I was particularly fascinated by the following claim, which Defoe presents with the same skepticism as the claims that the breath of an invisibly infected person will instantly kill a chicken: Some have proposed that such persons should breathe hard upon warm water, and that they should leave an unusual scum upon it, or upon several other things, especially such as are of a glutinous substance and are apt to receive a scum and support it. Is this just more bosh, invented by desperate people who don't understand bacterial infection? Or is this an instance of a pioneering scientist who genuinely observed that it was possible to culture bacteria sampled from the breath of infected people on particular substances (like proto-agar)?

The books is great, but  I'm not fully sure how accurate the claims are. Defoe is rightly skeptical of a great deal of the claims that he reports (good journalism there: it's probably wrong, dear reader, but here's what people were saying and doing), but in other cases he makes rather sweeping claims that don't necessarily hold water: For example, at one point Defoe claims that an ongoing war with the Dutch starting going better for the British, because the Dutch got all shy about taking potentially infected boats. However, Stephen Porter's modern text about that outbreak in 1665 suggests that, in fact, no such thing happened. So perhaps the actual history may not be accurate, but certainly the constructed history shows a deeply intelligent man considering extremely plausible sequences of events, many of which probably happened.

So, yes: read this book! it's great! Especially now!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on March 10, 2020, 05:30:01 AM
So, I was sitting around rewatching the scene in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood in which Brad Pitt beats the @#$% out of Bruce Lee when I saw on Twitter that the name "coronavirus" is now racist ("racist"). Forumites, is this a thing? Have I been living under a rock?

I'd appreciate it if someone on this thread would advise me. Until then, to be safe, I'll stop calling it "coronavirus" and go with "Xi Jinping Disease" instead.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apostrophe on March 10, 2020, 06:17:13 AM
Quote from: Anselm on March 09, 2020, 01:07:51 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 09, 2020, 08:09:06 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on March 09, 2020, 07:38:53 AM
Once again, the rules and common sense apparently only apply to some of us.

A similar thing happened in New Hampshire, a man violated advice to self-quarantine.

How exactly does one do this?  Do you just stay in the house and have others deliver food to you?

Yes, but you can only accept delivery outside your door. I'm in a place where many people are in quarantine but not one where there are shelf-emptying consumer behaviors. Knowing that quarantine might be extended, many of us have been gradually adding to our supplies.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on March 10, 2020, 07:01:14 AM
Quote from: writingprof on March 10, 2020, 05:30:01 AM
So, I was sitting around rewatching the scene in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood in which Brad Pitt beats the @#$% out of Bruce Lee when I saw on Twitter that the name "coronavirus" is now racist ("racist"). Forumites, is this a thing? Have I been living under a rock?

I'd appreciate it if someone on this thread would advise me. Until then, to be safe, I'll stop calling it "coronavirus" and go with "Xi Jinping Disease" instead.

If it's the same thing I saw shared this morning, I don't think the problem is "coronavirus," but the adjective preceding it. It took me a minute to see it also.

AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on March 10, 2020, 07:48:52 AM
Quote from: mamselle on March 09, 2020, 02:40:18 PM
Quote from: apl68 on March 09, 2020, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: wwwdotcom on March 09, 2020, 01:12:33 PM
Quote from: Anselm on March 09, 2020, 01:07:51 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 09, 2020, 08:09:06 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on March 09, 2020, 07:38:53 AM
Once again, the rules and common sense apparently only apply to some of us.

A similar thing happened in New Hampshire, a man violated advice to self-quarantine.

How exactly does one do this?  Do you just stay in the house and have others deliver food to you?

Or eat the food you have in your house.

Defoe gives examples of this as well.  Really, A Journal of the Plague Year gives a LOT of food for thought about epidemic and pandemic situations.  It's not only a vivid historical novel portrayal of a devastating epidemic, it's also the grandaddy of modern epidemic disaster stories.  You can even see the distant ancestors of all those zombie apocalypse stories of recent years in Defoe's descriptions of people fleeing from shambling, delirious plague victims.

Yes.

And then there's the Decameron...

M.

Yes, I suppose I'm not giving Boccaccio his due.  But his descriptions of a plague, vivid though they are, aren't modern in a way Defoe's are.  Ergative sums it up pretty well. 

To ergative's discussion I would only add that A Journal of the Plague Year includes an extended sequence in which a group of plague refugees from London camp out in an uninfected village and have to deal with the fears of the locals.  The locals are afraid that the refugees might be bringing the plague, or might be ne'er-do-wells who threaten them in other ways.  It looks for a time like there might even be violence.  Fortunately everything is resolved peacefully.  There's a very believable account of how the two groups work out an accommodation so that the refugees can stay until the epidemic is over.  It's enough to make one wonder whether Defoe based this sequence on actual events, and if so, how much dramatic license did he use.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: fourhats on March 10, 2020, 08:49:09 AM
I heard this morning that a lot of our students are planning to take advantage of low fares (from airlines who've lost bookings) to start traveling to all sorts of tourist destinations. Also that those brought back from affected areas and ordered to self-quarantine at home have instead come to campus to attend parties and events.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 10, 2020, 09:15:57 AM
Quote from: fourhats on March 10, 2020, 08:49:09 AM
I heard this morning that a lot of our students are planning to take advantage of low fares (from airlines who've lost bookings) to start traveling to all sorts of tourist destinations. Also that those brought back from affected areas and ordered to self-quarantine at home have instead come to campus to attend parties and events.

I'm not sure it makes sense to spend time worrying about this when it might be just as bad for students to be traveling to New York or Washington or various other places in the US.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: fourhats on March 10, 2020, 09:19:27 AM
But what about returning to campus from affected areas, and going to parties when ordered to stay home and not potentially expose other students to the virus?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 10, 2020, 09:25:04 AM
Quote from: fourhats on March 10, 2020, 09:19:27 AM
But what about returning to campus from affected areas, and going to parties when ordered to stay home and not potentially expose other students to the virus?

If that is really happening that is obviously not good, although it sounds like a rumor which might or might not be true.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: fourhats on March 10, 2020, 09:32:16 AM
It isn't a rumor, and the administration has had to get involved to stop the students.

Other students are booking cruises over spring break because the prices are low.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 10, 2020, 09:37:06 AM
Quote from: fourhats on March 10, 2020, 09:32:16 AM
It isn't a rumor, and the administration has had to get involved to stop the students.

Other students are booking cruises over spring break because the prices are low.

I'm just saying that campuses are hotbeds for various rumors that might have only a grain of truth in them. One students mentions to a professor that maybe they should go on a cruise now since prices are so low and suddenly this is a trend. Perhaps one student wasn't responsible about quarantine and somebody in the administration had to deal with it and mentioned it to someone.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: fourhats on March 10, 2020, 09:40:46 AM
I work closely with residential life, faculty in residence, and the administration. I can assure you that it's true. In addition, students who are supposed to be self-quarantined at home (out of town) have been seen at campus events and parties.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on March 10, 2020, 09:43:44 AM
Rumor has it that one of the Science grad. students has it...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: no1capybara on March 10, 2020, 12:32:01 PM
Our classes just got suspended until Monday to give us time to move to an online environment.

Until March 27th: Residence and dining halls remaining open.  Sports events still going on without spectators.

Interesting times!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on March 10, 2020, 01:56:39 PM
https://news.yahoo.com/french-mayor-defends-smurf-rally-outcry-over-virus-001955753.html

The fearless French inspire me with their bravery.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on March 10, 2020, 03:00:11 PM
There's a fine line between bravery and stupidity.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on March 10, 2020, 05:45:08 PM

I am said to be old, and I substitute teach.  Last week, while shepherding an agricultural science class, I decided to try to enlighten a large high school class about hygiene.  The area about which I chose to remark was hand washing. 

When I was a youngster, our family had a nursemaid that instructed us to at least rinse our hands after a long day of play, after touching unsanitary areas, or before coming to dinner.  I tried to tie this in to a "Good, Better, Best" approach to "cleaning up" but I am afraid the students thought that meant that they should only make sure to rinse their hands as an added precaution during this time of disease worries. THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT!

Having been in a variety of school systems during the past twenty years, I know that, although at the start of school most bathroom areas are well supplied and in a good state of cleanliness, the
restroom areas become dirty, stopped up, non functioning, and missing paper towels and such very quickly.  So I suggest that if one finds oneself in one of those areas, one should at least consider these good, better, best priorities:

  1.  No water, try to find sanitizer/sanitizer wipes
       2. Room temp water only, at least rinse (and dry if possible)
          3. Heated water, dry
             4.  Heated water and soap, dry
                5.  Heated water, rub up soapy hands while whistling Dix..uh.. a tune for about 20 seconds, then drying them.

Being a guy and having been a teenager, I know that the impulse for some guys is to just rub their hands around in their pockets a bit ( I know nothing of what girls might do!).  You, of course can design your own process choice protocol for a portion of hygiene activities, as I have had only a few minutes of experience at this. 

                 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on March 14, 2020, 04:01:02 PM
Things have really gone crazy now. Planes turned around mid-flight. Governments cancelling things left right and center. And maybe Trudeau has it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on March 17, 2020, 10:21:38 AM
I hope forumites are ok. This whole thing has spiralled from when I started this thread!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on March 17, 2020, 02:15:49 PM
Yeah, what a difference less than two months has made since you started the thread, bacardiandlime.

I'd like to see a thread on optimistic and "good news" things related to the virus.

We'll have less air pollution for awhile.  The first vaccine experiment has begun. Some therapeutics for other illnesses are showing promise.  Things like that.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on March 17, 2020, 02:21:08 PM
I like that some people are reaching out and helping neighbors. Offering to get things for them, sharing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on March 17, 2020, 05:06:31 PM
We're doing something a little like that on the "humor & wisdom" thread, if you want to join us!

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 17, 2020, 05:35:54 PM
I SCORED! !!  I was able to get BREAD AND MILK!!!

I also picked up a 14 pound turkey. I am NOW prepared for quarantine! 

In graduate school I cooked a 14/16 pound bird every term... Quick quiz... How much turkey can you eat if you cook a 16 pound turkey and a term lasts 15 weeks?  Enough that I have not cooked a turkey in almost 20 years!!  BUT if Im stuck home and with 2 days (defrost) notice, It will be Turkey, Turkey, Turkey.... turkey soup, turkey sandwiches, turkey hash, turkey with rice, turkey with stuffing, turkey with potatoes, ...

So I am now ready. I have (fat free - only choice) milk, bread, turkey and I already have plenty of eggs.

Are you able to find what YOU want at your store?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on March 17, 2020, 06:08:00 PM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on March 17, 2020, 02:21:08 PM
I like that some people are reaching out and helping neighbors. Offering to get things for them, sharing.

People in my town have begun a Facebook group with  name like What's For Dinner Springfield?   It is meant to inform us about take out and delivery options from our local independent restaurants who can no longer have  diners inside.   
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on March 17, 2020, 07:10:47 PM
Quote from: clean on March 17, 2020, 05:35:54 PM
Are you able to find what YOU want at your store?

I went yesterday evening and it was surprising un-apocolypic but the pattern of what was depleted and not was quite bizarre--

Almost no bottled water. WHY?! Water is the one thing you do not need to buy. Our tap water is just fine. It will continue to be fine.

No eggs at all, but plenty of cheese and yogurt. Limited supply of milk but plenty of non-diary milks. Somewhat depleted produce supply, but still a good selection. Almost no rice and a limited supply of dried beans, but lots of pasta left. Very little toilet paper. Plenty of everything else so far as I saw (frozen foods, snack foods, cereal).

I mostly went to get more yeast so I can continue to bake my own bread (which I always do), and garlic (which was urgent, obviously). But I also took the occasion to buy more peanut butter, dried beans, cheese, and chocolate. Definitely set now for quite a while.

Strangest cart I saw at check out-- two young men buying bottled water, four packages of Oreos and one box of nutrigrain bars.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on March 17, 2020, 07:18:16 PM
Apparently, people are stocking up on guns and ammo.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-15/coronavirus-pandemic-gun-sales-surge-us-california

Well, whether this is rational or not depends on who one's neighbors are! :-)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Wahoo Redux on March 17, 2020, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: dismalist on March 17, 2020, 07:18:16 PM
Apparently, people are stocking up on guns and ammo.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-15/coronavirus-pandemic-gun-sales-surge-us-california

Well, whether this is rational or not depends on who one's neighbors are! :-)

Didn't know you could shoot the virus!  Cool.

Kind of reminds me of the surge in gun sales when Obama was elected and certain people were sure he was going to impose martial law. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apostrophe on March 18, 2020, 04:27:55 AM
Quote from: clean on March 17, 2020, 05:35:54 PM
I SCORED! !!  I was able to get BREAD AND MILK!!!

I also picked up a 14 pound turkey. I am NOW prepared for quarantine! 

In graduate school I cooked a 14/16 pound bird every term... Quick quiz... How much turkey can you eat if you cook a 16 pound turkey and a term lasts 15 weeks?  Enough that I have not cooked a turkey in almost 20 years!!  BUT if Im stuck home and with 2 days (defrost) notice, It will be Turkey, Turkey, Turkey.... turkey soup, turkey sandwiches, turkey hash, turkey with rice, turkey with stuffing, turkey with potatoes, ...

So I am now ready. I have (fat free - only choice) milk, bread, turkey and I already have plenty of eggs.

Are you able to find what YOU want at your store?

Turkey chili?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on March 18, 2020, 05:47:56 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 17, 2020, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: dismalist on March 17, 2020, 07:18:16 PM
Apparently, people are stocking up on guns and ammo.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-15/coronavirus-pandemic-gun-sales-surge-us-california

Well, whether this is rational or not depends on who one's neighbors are! :-)

Didn't know you could shoot the virus!  Cool.

Kind of reminds me of the surge in gun sales when Obama was elected and certain people were sure he was going to impose martial law.

My rural county is both a 2nd amendment sanctuary and a militia supporter (whatever that means).  I expect the gun toting militias to park at the county line and shoot the virus as it attempts to enter .....  If not, what's the point of a gun toting militia?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on March 18, 2020, 06:04:49 AM
Mass media say Wuhan, China reports just one new case for second consecutive day.

Can we trust this as being at least semi-valid data?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on March 18, 2020, 06:56:31 AM
Here's hoping they've brought it under control.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hibush on March 18, 2020, 05:26:12 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 18, 2020, 06:04:49 AM
Mass media say Wuhan, China reports just one new case for second consecutive day.

Can we trust this as being at least semi-valid data?

Given that the expectation is that ~80% will get the disease eventually and that Chinese media are not allowed to report bad news, I do not think this means that the problem is over in Wuhan. Nor does it mean that we should expect it to resolve in a few weeks.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 18, 2020, 07:20:44 PM
Quote from: Hibush on March 18, 2020, 05:26:12 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 18, 2020, 06:04:49 AM
Mass media say Wuhan, China reports just one new case for second consecutive day.

Can we trust this as being at least semi-valid data?

Given that the expectation is that ~80% will get the disease eventually and that Chinese media are not allowed to report bad news, I do not think this means that the problem is over in Wuhan. Nor does it mean that we should expect it to resolve in a few weeks.

And even if it's "over" for now, it won't take much to re-start it. Sounds to me like we're going to need on-off periods of social distancing every couple of months for, like, a couple years.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 18, 2020, 08:37:31 PM
Speaking of China....
Have there been any sightings of the youtube 'journalists' that disappeared last month?

there was a news item that a Chinese Billionaire was critical of the government and disappeared too. Any word or sign of him lately?

Then there is the spat over Trump calling it 'the Chinese Virus", though the Chinese government ministers (at least one) was accusing the US military of sending it over (when there was some military athletic event in November).

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mahagonny on March 18, 2020, 10:10:19 PM
Quote from: clean on March 18, 2020, 08:37:31 PM
Speaking of China....
Have there been any sightings of the youtube 'journalists' that disappeared last month?

there was a news item that a Chinese Billionaire was critical of the government and disappeared too. Any word or sign of him lately?

Then there is the spat over Trump calling it 'the Chinese Virus", though the Chinese government ministers (at least one) was accusing the US military of sending it over (when there was some military athletic event in November).

Who's got cooties?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on March 19, 2020, 10:28:17 AM
Spoke to someone fairly high up in the state's public health hierarchy. He said mass testing in this area should come on line in about a week and then we will have a much better understanding of the extent of community transmission. In other words, the number of reported cases will skyrocket simply because more people will be getting tested.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: alto_stratus on March 19, 2020, 11:09:23 AM
Thanks for sharing that info, spork.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: sprout on March 19, 2020, 11:53:58 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 18, 2020, 07:20:44 PM
And even if it's "over" for now, it won't take much to re-start it. Sounds to me like we're going to need on-off periods of social distancing every couple of months for, like, a couple years.

Someone at MIT Tech Review agrees with you:  We're not going back to normal (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615370/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing-18-months/)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: zyzzx on March 19, 2020, 12:50:41 PM
This site https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en (https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en) has now added a link to testing info by state. For some states the numbers are really shocking - 50% or more tests are positive, with some even about 70% (New Jersey, Alabama, which do not have small numbers of confirmed cases). If 70% of the tests are positive, that means that they have truly no clue how many cases there could be. Not the slightest clue. That is not good. (assuming that these numbers are reliable)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 19, 2020, 02:33:48 PM
Quote from: sprout on March 19, 2020, 11:53:58 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 18, 2020, 07:20:44 PM
And even if it's "over" for now, it won't take much to re-start it. Sounds to me like we're going to need on-off periods of social distancing every couple of months for, like, a couple years.

Someone at MIT Tech Review agrees with you:  We're not going back to normal (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615370/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing-18-months/)

Oh goodie.

FWIW, I suppose I should say: guess I was totally wrong in my very first post on the subject. Probably should have taken it more seriously earlier on. I can admit it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on March 19, 2020, 03:33:40 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 18, 2020, 07:20:44 PM
Quote from: Hibush on March 18, 2020, 05:26:12 PM

Given that the expectation is that ~80% will get the disease eventually and that Chinese media are not allowed to report bad news, I do not think this means that the problem is over in Wuhan. Nor does it mean that we should expect it to resolve in a few weeks.

And even if it's "over" for now, it won't take much to re-start it. Sounds to me like we're going to need on-off periods of social distancing every couple of months for, like, a couple years.

That's the worst case scenario, though of course it's possible. Hopefully in about a year there will be an effective vaccine and/or an effective treatment that will make it much more manageable.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on March 19, 2020, 04:28:22 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on March 19, 2020, 03:33:40 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 18, 2020, 07:20:44 PM
Quote from: Hibush on March 18, 2020, 05:26:12 PM

Given that the expectation is that ~80% will get the disease eventually and that Chinese media are not allowed to report bad news, I do not think this means that the problem is over in Wuhan. Nor does it mean that we should expect it to resolve in a few weeks.

And even if it's "over" for now, it won't take much to re-start it. Sounds to me like we're going to need on-off periods of social distancing every couple of months for, like, a couple years.

That's the worst case scenario, though of course it's possible. Hopefully in about a year there will be an effective vaccine and/or an effective treatment that will make it much more manageable.

Also many of those least able to cope with infection will be killed off in the first wave. And after that there will be more herd immunity.

Assuming the virus doesn't mutate sufficiently, of course.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on March 19, 2020, 06:46:30 PM
Mutations could go either way; new strains could be less deadly.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on March 20, 2020, 01:54:40 AM
Next time around however, most of us will have been exposed and will have developed antibodies. I don't think we're going to see repeated episodes of the current measures unless the virus mutates significantly.

The comparisons to 'Spanish flu' are important but we have to remember that modern medicine, even if stressed, if much better than what was available in 1918.

Don't panic, friends,

SE
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 20, 2020, 04:56:11 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on March 19, 2020, 06:46:30 PM
Mutations could go either way; new strains could be less deadly.

It tends to go that way as I understand it because of natural selection. If mutations occur that result in lesser severity, that actually would make it easier to spread. A virus that results in people walking around sneezing and coughing on others is going to spread more rapidly than one that has those same people lying in bed at home. (or worse, sigh) But I don't think anyone has any real sense of the time scale.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on March 20, 2020, 09:54:06 AM
With hair salons and barber shops closing, what will Americans look like when they emerge from isolation?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on March 20, 2020, 11:37:46 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 20, 2020, 09:54:06 AM
With hair salons and barber shops closing, what will Americans look like when they emerge from isolation?

I'm reminded of the Michael Keaton Batman, in which a particular (but unknown) combination of cosmetics is poisonous.  Everybody looks like hell.  The nightly-newscast clips are particularly funny.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mahagonny on March 20, 2020, 12:12:27 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 20, 2020, 09:54:06 AM
With hair salons and barber shops closing, what will Americans look like when they emerge from isolation?

Unfortunately, I'll look about the same.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on March 20, 2020, 12:40:36 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 20, 2020, 09:54:06 AM
With hair salons and barber shops closing, what will Americans look like when they emerge from isolation?

Funny you should ask!  My local hair-care provider was still open, and I got mine cut earlier today.  The biggest thing I was worried about catching was a chill getting through the rain to get there.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on March 23, 2020, 10:54:55 AM
Debates about human and financial costs/benefits of statewide and nationwide shutdowns are underway.  These are not all partisan debates.

What do you think happens next in individual states and for U.S. national guidelines?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on March 23, 2020, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 23, 2020, 10:54:55 AM
Debates about human and financial costs/benefits of statewide and nationwide shutdowns are underway.  These are not all partisan debates.

What do you think happens next in individual states and for U.S. national guidelines?

Unless bodies are piling up in the streets or we're treated to news clips of U.S. hospitals looking like Mother Teresa's Calcutta, the majority will get sick of sheltering in place in about two weeks.  Because Trump's political instincts are often extraordinarily good, he is already realizing this and is clearly coming to the conclusion that "don't let the whiners keep you inside" is a winning message.

My guess is that the citizenry, businesses, and the President will want to get back to work before governors believe it's safe.  Thus, this will be settled where all American issues are settled: in court.

I look forward to the inevitable New York Times article about how the "legitimacy of the Court" is at stake if John Roberts doesn't side with the progressives and keep the economy shut down.  Needless to say, the moment Biden wins the election, you'll never hear the words "coronavirus" or "COVID" again.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on March 24, 2020, 06:17:24 AM
Just opened an email sent by my institution @ 11 last night:  a Clery notice that a student at my campus has been diagnosed as positive. 

Do they have to notify those the student was in contact with for a period of time prior to diagnosis?

ETA:  Good lord.  That sentence looks like something my students would write.  Sorry.  :-)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mahagonny on March 24, 2020, 06:33:00 AM
Quote from: writingprof on March 23, 2020, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 23, 2020, 10:54:55 AM
Debates about human and financial costs/benefits of statewide and nationwide shutdowns are underway.  These are not all partisan debates.

What do you think happens next in individual states and for U.S. national guidelines?

Unless bodies are piling up in the streets or we're treated to news clips of U.S. hospitals looking like Mother Teresa's Calcutta, the majority will get sick of sheltering in place in about two weeks.  Because Trump's political instincts are often extraordinarily good, he is already realizing this and is clearly coming to the conclusion that "don't let the whiners keep you inside" is a winning message.

Analogous to stopping your antidepressant medication because it's working and you conclude you don't have depression any more and so don't need treatment. I think you're right that Trump has good political instincts. But that's not necessarily good for anyone every time.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Myword on March 24, 2020, 07:13:52 AM
Hey, this is not the Black Plague or leprosy or a fate worse than death.

I've been practicing social distancing for years without trying.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on March 24, 2020, 09:33:44 AM
An interesting analysis of geopolitical consequences:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52008453 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52008453)

A related, and IMO broader matter, is that the West has largely botched up its response compared to the Far East. I think a reasonable measure is the number of dead per million inhabitants, as it accounts both for success or failure in keeping contagion low and the success or failure of hospitals in keeping patients alive. By this measure, PR China and South Korea are tied with the US and Germany (and have much better numbers than Italy or Spain, or even than the UK) - but China's and S. Korea's numbers aren't changing much anymore. Japan and Singapore have much better numbers than the US, UK, Canada, Germany, Switzerland or Norway, and Taiwan (which had prepared extensively for a pandemic) has much better numbers than Japan and Singapore. All this even though North America and Europe had longer to prepare than Japan or Taiwan, let alone PR China. The regional/cultural factor seems to outweigh everything else, as the Far Eastern countries with good numbers include both democracies and dictatorships, and the Western countries doing badly include countries with very different politics and healthcare systems.
Numbers available here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on March 24, 2020, 09:48:42 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on March 24, 2020, 09:33:44 AM
The regional/cultural factor seems to outweigh everything else, as the Far Eastern countries with good numbers include both democracies and dictatorships, and the Western countries doing badly include countries with very different politics and healthcare systems.

Thanks, Stockmann.  Many lessons to be learned.

Many U.S. politicians (D and R) have shifted to focusing on mortality rates and characterizing the virus as "most people don't die" and "it's an old people's problem."  They are ignoring that the virus can be a long, miserable thing for a person to endure, regardless of age, with long-term consequences to individual health unknown.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on March 24, 2020, 10:17:20 AM
Sad to say, a noticeable spike in infections nationwide right about now would probably be a good thing in the U.S., to discourage complacency.  I have to admit that it's already overcome mine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 24, 2020, 10:20:43 AM
It looks like infection rates haven't really increased much at all over here in a few days.

At least, in this province. My home province just--literally seconds ago--posted an increase of 400 infections. Looks like my hometowns are at the epicentre.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on March 24, 2020, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: apl68 on March 24, 2020, 10:17:20 AM
Sad to say, a noticeable spike in infections nationwide right about now would probably be a good thing in the U.S., to discourage complacency.  I have to admit that it's already overcome mine.

There will be a large spike in confirmed cases even if social distancing is working perfectly now, because of the incubation period between infection and symptoms, and also the increase in testing. Spike in hospitalizations also lags spikes in infection by about a week, so things are going to get very bad in the next few weeks even if new infections are (hopefully!) going down.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apostrophe on March 24, 2020, 12:17:45 PM
Quote from: writingprof on March 23, 2020, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 23, 2020, 10:54:55 AM
Debates about human and financial costs/benefits of statewide and nationwide shutdowns are underway.  These are not all partisan debates.

What do you think happens next in individual states and for U.S. national guidelines?

Unless bodies are piling up in the streets or we're treated to news clips of U.S. hospitals looking like Mother Teresa's Calcutta, the majority will get sick of sheltering in place in about two weeks.  Because Trump's political instincts are often extraordinarily good, he is already realizing this and is clearly coming to the conclusion that "don't let the whiners keep you inside" is a winning message.

My guess is that the citizenry, businesses, and the President will want to get back to work before governors believe it's safe.  Thus, this will be settled where all American issues are settled: in court.

I look forward to the inevitable New York Times article about how the "legitimacy of the Court" is at stake if John Roberts doesn't side with the progressives and keep the economy shut down.  Needless to say, the moment Biden wins the election, you'll never hear the words "coronavirus" or "COVID" again.

Reading your posts as satire continues to be a good strategy.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on March 24, 2020, 01:02:41 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 24, 2020, 09:48:42 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on March 24, 2020, 09:33:44 AM
The regional/cultural factor seems to outweigh everything else, as the Far Eastern countries with good numbers include both democracies and dictatorships, and the Western countries doing badly include countries with very different politics and healthcare systems.

Thanks, Stockmann.  Many lessons to be learned.

Many U.S. politicians (D and R) have shifted to focusing on mortality rates and characterizing the virus as "most people don't die" and "it's an old people's problem."  They are ignoring that the virus can be a long, miserable thing for a person to endure, regardless of age, with long-term consequences to individual health unknown.

Not only that - in Lombardy, people have died of things unrelated to coronavirus because there aren't enough respirators to go around - coronavirus patients aren't the only ones who need them. Also, doctors in parts of Lombardy are having to choose which patients to even try to save, because they can't try to save all. There are also patients in hospital corridors because there are not enough beds. I doubt the healthcare system in, say, Appalachia, Detroit, rural Alabama or Mississippi is much better than that in Lombardy. So spring breakers in Florida are not going to die of coronavirus directly, but they better hope if they have a serious accident in a drunken antic that the local hospital isn't already overwhelmed with coronavirus patients.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on March 25, 2020, 03:47:28 AM
Just popping in from the rest of the Internet to report on the innumeracy of  the general populace.

A good one: "They had 5,000 new cases yesterday! Just because the new case numbers are lower doesn't mean they are flattening the curve." Actually, yes, that is exactly what that means.

Or: "No one is reporting that there are 100,000 recoveries. We need to stop cowering in our basements!" Yeah, 110,00 recoveries actually, but over 19,000 death which makes for a case fatality rate of 15%. So, 100,000 recoveries = not such great news after all.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 25, 2020, 04:22:36 AM
Quote from: writingprof on March 23, 2020, 05:13:00 PM


Unless bodies are piling up in the streets or we're treated to news clips of U.S. hospitals looking like Mother Teresa's Calcutta, the majority will get sick of sheltering in place in about two weeks.  Because Trump's political instincts are often extraordinarily good, he is already realizing this and is clearly coming to the conclusion that "don't let the whiners keep you inside" is a winning message.

My guess is that the citizenry, businesses, and the President will want to get back to work before governors believe it's safe.  Thus, this will be settled where all American issues are settled: in court.

I look forward to the inevitable New York Times article about how the "legitimacy of the Court" is at stake if John Roberts doesn't side with the progressives and keep the economy shut down.  Needless to say, the moment Biden wins the election, you'll never hear the words "coronavirus" or "COVID" again.

As well as being absurd, this doesn't make any sense. The president hasn't ordered anything to shut down./ He probably could, using certain emergency powers, but he can't use those powers to end restrictions that governors have enacted. That's how Federalism works. So this whole weird scenario you've imagined bears no relationship to reality. The danger is Trump issuing new guidance at Easter that says everybody should reopen everything. I think its unlikely to actually happen, mostly because the pace of actual events is unfortunately likely to totally wash over all of this nonsense. By the way, that isn't a prospect that fills me with lots of glee.

I'm struck by your limited (and rather racist) imagination of how bad things could get. No, it isn't the Zombie apocalypse, but Spain and Italy have high quality health care systems and things there are very bad. Are most people ok? Sure, but a ton of people are getting sick and a lot of people are dying. Do you think Spanish and Italian people aren't complaining about restrictions because they enjoy sitting around in their houses all the time?

By the way, I know a lot of people who really detest Trump. I have heard nobody say that this is great because they think it will cost him the election. If someone did say that I'd be pretty furious. I'm worried about my parents and other older family members, as well as a few friends who have conditions that could put them more at risk. I have a toddler and the idea of me or my wife getting sick makes me pretty anxious. Chances are, we'd be fine, but it isn't a pleasant thought to imagine trying to isolate in our very compact house. Also, I can't say I'm loving the sudden end of daycare, and losing all the aspects of my job that I actually enjoy, interacting with students in person, but having to deal with more of the parts I hate. If in a couple weeks, the local situation was clear enough and there was limited and containable local spread, do you know how happy I'd be to send the kid back to hang out with his friends at school? To go hang out with some friends and have a beer?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 25, 2020, 04:48:55 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 25, 2020, 03:47:28 AM
Just popping in from the rest of the Internet to report on the innumeracy of  the general populace.

A good one: "They had 5,000 new cases yesterday! Just because the new case numbers are lower doesn't mean they are flattening the curve." Actually, yes, that is exactly what that means.

Or: "No one is reporting that there are 100,000 recoveries. We need to stop cowering in our basements!" Yeah, 110,00 recoveries actually, but over 19,000 death which makes for a case fatality rate of 15%. So, 100,000 recoveries = not such great news after all.

This is innumeracy too. If you divide fatality rates by total number of cases, you could be underestimating fatality rate early on if there are lots of people who have recently gotten sick, those people skew young and if testing has been extensive. However, if you only count resolved cases when numbers have been rapidly increasing, especially if lots of sick people aren't being tested, you are going to get some really distorted numbers. You start getting deaths before you get recoveries.

None of this back of the envelope math is actually how epidemiologists figure out what a real fatality rate is though. To do that you have to find ways of estimating the actual number of people infected. I'm not going to pretend to have any sort of expertise, but I saw various people who do on Twitter saying that they think a study that did this through various methods and estimated a death rate of a bit over one percent in Hubei is probably the most accurate measurement of the death rate there. It doesn't do any good to pretend this isn't a big deal, but it also isn't helpful to overestimate the bad effects either.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: zyzzx on March 25, 2020, 05:34:24 AM
Quote from: Caracal on March 25, 2020, 04:48:55 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 25, 2020, 03:47:28 AM
Just popping in from the rest of the Internet to report on the innumeracy of  the general populace.

A good one: "They had 5,000 new cases yesterday! Just because the new case numbers are lower doesn't mean they are flattening the curve." Actually, yes, that is exactly what that means.

Or: "No one is reporting that there are 100,000 recoveries. We need to stop cowering in our basements!" Yeah, 110,00 recoveries actually, but over 19,000 death which makes for a case fatality rate of 15%. So, 100,000 recoveries = not such great news after all.

This is innumeracy too. If you divide fatality rates by total number of cases, you could be underestimating fatality rate early on if there are lots of people who have recently gotten sick, those people skew young and if testing has been extensive. However, if you only count resolved cases when numbers have been rapidly increasing, especially if lots of sick people aren't being tested, you are going to get some really distorted numbers. You start getting deaths before you get recoveries.

None of this back of the envelope math is actually how epidemiologists figure out what a real fatality rate is though. To do that you have to find ways of estimating the actual number of people infected. I'm not going to pretend to have any sort of expertise, but I saw various people who do on Twitter saying that they think a study that did this through various methods and estimated a death rate of a bit over one percent in Hubei is probably the most accurate measurement of the death rate there. It doesn't do any good to pretend this isn't a big deal, but it also isn't helpful to overestimate the bad effects either.

With South Korea testing like crazy, seems like they should have the best handle on numbers of infected. They did aggressive testing of contacts, etc. and if they had missed a lot of asymptomatic cases, it seems unlikely that the new cases would be so low now. They are also well past their peak, so a large proportion of their cases have been resolved. Their death/recovery is 3.3% and death/cases is 1.4%. The first number will continue to go down, and the second number will continue to go up (assuming they don't get a second wave of cases), putting the final rate somewhere in between.
Similarly, the cruise ship where everyone was tested now has a death/case rate of 1.4%, which also still has the potential to increase.

So yeah, while we don't know the real death rate yet, we're not totally clueless. Best case scenarios where everyone can still receive top-quality care, and it seems like 1-2%. As health care systems get overwhelmed, this will go up. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: polly_mer on March 25, 2020, 05:54:18 AM
People might also want to use the fact that once things get bad enough, like NYC and Italy, no one is bothering to test; all the hospitals do is treat the people in front of them as best they can.

In terms of fatalities, the numbers that seem most convincing to me are from the weekly CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (https://www.cdc.gov/media/mmwrnews/index.html).  A very readable overview from last week is https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/coronavirus-new-age-analysis-of-risk-confirms-young-adults-not-invincible/ with breakdowns by age group.  1-3% overall fatality rate with good medical care while in quarantine is not nearly as informative as 10% over age 80 and within rounding of 0% below age 29. 

Fatality rate is also not nearly as informative as how many people need medical care to survive as well as what type (the goal of not overwhelming the medical system in each local place that flattening the curve is an abstraction to describe) and what after effects survivors might feel for weeks/months/years.  The on-the-ground rate is affected by quality of medical care; no/limited medical care is going to be very different outcomes than immediate quarantine with good medical care.

What scares me are the reports that rural hospitals may close before they even get to treat any COVID-19 because they were already in dire financial straits. (https://www.modernhealthcare.com/providers/covid-19-threatens-rural-hospitals-already-stretched-breaking-point)

Stay home.  Call/Skype/Portal/FaceTime your family and friends instead of visiting.  We can rebuild businesses a lot more easily with adults ready to resume their activities when the time comes than we can if we have random lottery choosing which people are still able to work with no regard to experience, skill sets, or ability.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 25, 2020, 06:29:19 AM
Quote from: zyzzx on March 25, 2020, 05:34:24 AM
Quote from: Caracal on March 25, 2020, 04:48:55 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 25, 2020, 03:47:28 AM
Just popping in from the rest of the Internet to report on the innumeracy of  the general populace.

A good one: "They had 5,000 new cases yesterday! Just because the new case numbers are lower doesn't mean they are flattening the curve." Actually, yes, that is exactly what that means.

Or: "No one is reporting that there are 100,000 recoveries. We need to stop cowering in our basements!" Yeah, 110,00 recoveries actually, but over 19,000 death which makes for a case fatality rate of 15%. So, 100,000 recoveries = not such great news after all.

This is innumeracy too. If you divide fatality rates by total number of cases, you could be underestimating fatality rate early on if there are lots of people who have recently gotten sick, those people skew young and if testing has been extensive. However, if you only count resolved cases when numbers have been rapidly increasing, especially if lots of sick people aren't being tested, you are going to get some really distorted numbers. You start getting deaths before you get recoveries.

None of this back of the envelope math is actually how epidemiologists figure out what a real fatality rate is though. To do that you have to find ways of estimating the actual number of people infected. I'm not going to pretend to have any sort of expertise, but I saw various people who do on Twitter saying that they think a study that did this through various methods and estimated a death rate of a bit over one percent in Hubei is probably the most accurate measurement of the death rate there. It doesn't do any good to pretend this isn't a big deal, but it also isn't helpful to overestimate the bad effects either.

With South Korea testing like crazy, seems like they should have the best handle on numbers of infected. They did aggressive testing of contacts, etc. and if they had missed a lot of asymptomatic cases, it seems unlikely that the new cases would be so low now. They are also well past their peak, so a large proportion of their cases have been resolved. Their death/recovery is 3.3% and death/cases is 1.4%. The first number will continue to go down, and the second number will continue to go up (assuming they don't get a second wave of cases), putting the final rate somewhere in between.
Similarly, the cruise ship where everyone was tested now has a death/case rate of 1.4%, which also still has the potential to increase.

So yeah, while we don't know the real death rate yet, we're not totally clueless. Best case scenarios where everyone can still receive top-quality care, and it seems like 1-2%. As health care systems get overwhelmed, this will go up.

Not to be difficult here, but I think that range doesn't really describe what experts seem to think is likely. The problem is that no matter how good the testing is, you still aren't getting all the symptomatic cases , and then you also have to consider the population effected. The people on the Diamond Princess skewed really old which makes them more vulnerable, but also were probably in pretty good health because they were on a cruise in the first place. So even when it seems like you have a natural experiment, you can't just divide deaths by cases and have a good number. Again, I can't claim any actual expertise, I just follow some people who seem well respected on Twitter and they all seemed to think the study that showed about 1.4 percent in Hubei was pretty good and that the methods they used to estimate unrecorded cases were solid.  At least early on, they were pretty overwhelmed there so that is probably more of an upper bound than a lower bound although I wouldn't want to assume things couldn't get worse here.

In a larger sense, I agree with Poly, it is really more about the health care system. However, I actually do think there's a danger to what I've been seeing with attempts to scare younger, healthy people with numbers that are misleading or overinflated. It is pretty clear that if hospitals are going to keep their heads above water and be able to treat very sick people, people who are just pretty sick need to be at home or somewhere else. I've seen suggestions coming from Italy and Spain that they need systems where people who would normally be admitted into the hospital but don't need ICU care could either stay at home and receive daily visits from people who check their vitals and supply oxygen if needed, or that you need to create centralized places where non-critically ill people can get these services. You aren't going to get people to accept this stuff if you've persuaded them that they are at really high risk when they aren't.

To be clear, Poly's point is valid
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on March 25, 2020, 07:12:53 AM
There's a really urgent need to get better data. California is doing some of it by randomly selecting people to test from some communities, including people with no symptoms and no connection to people who tested positive. That's a much better way to get a real sense of infection rates and share requiring hospitalization. That is, right now we have P(hospitalization|testing) and P(mortality|testing), and P(testing|symptoms). That's going to upward bias the actual estimate. The problem is that this still doesn't let us detect people who already had the virus and are now immune to it (so the estimate is still going to be too high). For that, we'll need a different test (that I'm sure is being developed).

Incidentally, if you look on reddit's nursing forum, you'll see universal reporting that ER visits are down massively. People avoid going to the hospital for minor injuries, most likely because they don't want to get in contact with potential COVID patients. That's also going to drive demand for testing: if you have a mild fever, are you really going to risk exposure just to confirm one way or another? No: you'll just stay home unless your symptoms get more severe. That's the best outcome for the healthcare system, too -- we don't need everyone with mild symptoms taking up scarce hospital beds.

If it turns out that for 10,000 known positive cases there were 90,000 unknown positive cases, the mortality rate drops from 2% to 0.02%. The former is "shut down the economy!" bad, the latter is basically business as usual.

None of which is to say that the optimal policy response is business as usual. In a crisis, you make decisions with the information you have, not the information you wish you had. But at the same time, we could have been ahead of the game if it hadn't taken us months to approve commercial labs to do COVID testing. A municipal health department running 20 tests per day by hand vs. a single Cobas machine running 3,000 per day fully automated (and there are over 100 of them scattered throughout the country). Only one of those is useful. Incidentally, FDA only just now relaxed ventilator regulation, allowing manufacturers minor changes like using a different type of plastic or an engine sourced from a different supplier without going through re-certification. So we should expect production of those to speed up, too. Maybe we can end the trade war with China so these supplies don't get stuck at the border.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morris Zapp on March 25, 2020, 07:12:59 AM
I was really scared about all the reports of people in their 20s, etc.  getting a serious case of the virus, since I have adult children.  However, I wondered if anyone has looked at whether those who are getting serious cases have perhaps vaped in the past?  Given the stories last year about how vaping damages your lungs, I wondered if it might be something that made coronavirus worse.  Haven't seen anything about that, however.  Has anyone looked at this?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on March 25, 2020, 07:16:15 AM
From polly_mer:  What scares me are the reports that rural hospitals may close before they even get to treat any COVID-19 because they were already in dire financial straits.

My rural area definitely falls into that category but I just learned that one small area hospital (within a larger combined, multi-state health system) is being converted to Covid 19.  And now one confirmed case at area nursing home.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on March 25, 2020, 07:59:32 AM
Illness rates reported today are apparently due to people being infected up to 14 days ago.  There is a lag time for state and local shut downs to yield results in terms of fewer reported cases.


Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apostrophe on March 25, 2020, 08:35:48 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on March 24, 2020, 01:02:41 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 24, 2020, 09:48:42 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on March 24, 2020, 09:33:44 AM
The regional/cultural factor seems to outweigh everything else, as the Far Eastern countries with good numbers include both democracies and dictatorships, and the Western countries doing badly include countries with very different politics and healthcare systems.

Thanks, Stockmann.  Many lessons to be learned.

Many U.S. politicians (D and R) have shifted to focusing on mortality rates and characterizing the virus as "most people don't die" and "it's an old people's problem."  They are ignoring that the virus can be a long, miserable thing for a person to endure, regardless of age, with long-term consequences to individual health unknown.

Not only that - in Lombardy, people have died of things unrelated to coronavirus because there aren't enough respirators to go around - coronavirus patients aren't the only ones who need them. Also, doctors in parts of Lombardy are having to choose which patients to even try to save, because they can't try to save all. There are also patients in hospital corridors because there are not enough beds. I doubt the healthcare system in, say, Appalachia, Detroit, rural Alabama or Mississippi is much better than that in Lombardy. So spring breakers in Florida are not going to die of coronavirus directly, but they better hope if they have a serious accident in a drunken antic that the local hospital isn't already overwhelmed with coronavirus patients.

I realize this wasn't your main point, but the opposite is likely the case—the hospitals in Lombardy (certainly in Milan) are likely to be much better than those in the US.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 25, 2020, 08:44:50 AM
A friend asked, and I have no idea, but imagine someone here does: is there any reason why we can't use the oxygen masks on airplanes to supplement the ventilator shortage? (I mean, I know they're not ventilators, but I imagine they might be helpful for less severe cases?)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on March 25, 2020, 09:09:27 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 25, 2020, 08:44:50 AM
A friend asked, and I have no idea, but imagine someone here does: is there any reason why we can't use the oxygen masks on airplanes to supplement the ventilator shortage? (I mean, I know they're not ventilators, but I imagine they might be helpful for less severe cases?)

Unfortunately they are not remotely the same thing. Those just supply the oxygen levels of a normally pressurized cabin (the equivalent of 5000-8000 ft elevation) in the case of cabin depressurization. A ventilator breathes *for* the patient when they are unable to breath on their own. Supplemental oxygen may help some patients but that is already given in hospitals. Ventilators are what there is a critical shortage of.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on March 25, 2020, 09:16:29 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 25, 2020, 08:44:50 AM
A friend asked, and I have no idea, but imagine someone here does: is there any reason why we can't use the oxygen masks on airplanes to supplement the ventilator shortage? (I mean, I know they're not ventilators, but I imagine they might be helpful for less severe cases?)

I'm not "that" kind of doctor but this is probably close enough for our purposes here.  May expand a bit on Puget's post

Hospitals already can provide oxygen via nasal cannula or full face mask now.  Airplane oxygen systems depend on a chemical reaction that releases oxygen gas for about the 10 minutes it would take the aircraft to descend to a level where the air was breathable.

Ventilators can provide oxygen, but mostly they assist with the act of breathing in people whose respiratory drive is too weak, or whose use of accessory (i.e. chest wall) muscles suggests they are unable to breathe on their own.  In most people they assist with the process of breathing.  The patient starts a breath and the vent provides assistance to complete it.  And if they stop breathing, the machine kicks in to essentially force one (meaning that strictly speaking, you could ventilate a corpse).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 25, 2020, 09:52:29 AM
Makes sense, thanks.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: sprout on March 25, 2020, 10:06:15 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on March 25, 2020, 09:16:29 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 25, 2020, 08:44:50 AM
A friend asked, and I have no idea, but imagine someone here does: is there any reason why we can't use the oxygen masks on airplanes to supplement the ventilator shortage? (I mean, I know they're not ventilators, but I imagine they might be helpful for less severe cases?)

I'm not "that" kind of doctor but this is probably close enough for our purposes here.  May expand a bit on Puget's post

Hospitals already can provide oxygen via nasal cannula or full face mask now.  Airplane oxygen systems depend on a chemical reaction that releases oxygen gas for about the 10 minutes it would take the aircraft to descend to a level where the air was breathable.

Ventilators can provide oxygen, but mostly they assist with the act of breathing in people whose respiratory drive is too weak, or whose use of accessory (i.e. chest wall) muscles suggests they are unable to breathe on their own.  In most people they assist with the process of breathing.  The patient starts a breath and the vent provides assistance to complete it.  And if they stop breathing, the machine kicks in to essentially force one (meaning that strictly speaking, you could ventilate a corpse).
I was wondering about CPAP machines in the same vein - could they be used as ventilators?  After noodling around on Google a bit, it seems like a maybe?  But you'd need to control aerosolization of respiratory fluids.
FDA Ventilator Supply Mitigation Strategies (https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/letters-health-care-providers/ventilator-supply-mitigation-strategies-letter-health-care-providers)
Airway management adjustments in era of COVID-19 (https://www.ems1.com/ems-products/medical-equipment/airway-management/articles/airway-management-adjustments-in-the-era-of-covid-19-0RrHWNl1MpLw95dY/)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 25, 2020, 11:53:14 AM
Quote from: Morris Zapp on March 25, 2020, 07:12:59 AM
I was really scared about all the reports of people in their 20s, etc.  getting a serious case of the virus, since I have adult children.  However, I wondered if anyone has looked at whether those who are getting serious cases have perhaps vaped in the past?  Given the stories last year about how vaping damages your lungs, I wondered if it might be something that made coronavirus worse.  Haven't seen anything about that, however.  Has anyone looked at this?

As a longtime hypochondriac, I think the thing to remember is that people are always focused on more unusual events, especially if they seem more tragic. None of this is to say that this isn't serious, or that young people can't get sick, or it is just the flu, or any of that. However, anecdotal reports can be deceiving about this stuff and make you more anxious if you're prone to anxiety.

If you just follow news reports you could easily believe that most of the people who get cancer are young, but its just that people pay more attention to younger cancer patients than older ones who make up the large majority.

Same thing here. Older people are far more likely to get very sick and also far more likely to die from this. That's the established narrative so stories that fit that don't get much attention. When a younger person gets sick, it becomes a whole story. A lot of people have this now. The US could easily have a few hundred thousand cases already. You get numbers that large and unusual events start occurring, but it doesn't actually make them more likely. The other thing is that young people are just a lot more likely to talk about their experience. I've been seeing lots of accounts of people very sick in their 30s, but you have to remember that those are the people more likely to be on Twitter. With personal accounts, there's also just a bias towards the more severe, because there's more to talk about. My stepbrother got it, had a mild fever, felt crummy for a few days and then was fine. That isn't an interesting story so you'll hear less about it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on March 27, 2020, 05:41:33 AM
From The Guardian:

"The Spanish government has withdrawn 9,000 Chinese-made coronavirus testing kits from use after it emerged that they had an accurate detection rate of just 30%."

"However, a batch of Chinese-made kits bought by Spanish health authorities a few weeks ago has been pulled after they were discovered to be unreliable and the Chinese government said that they had been made by a company that did not appear on its list of authorised manufacturers.

In a statement on Thursday, Spain's health ministry said it would be returning the kits, but stressed that they had not be bought directly from the Chinese manufacturer but from a supply company in Spain that had purchased them in China and had provided the necessary accompanying paperwork."

Not nice.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on March 27, 2020, 11:22:00 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 27, 2020, 05:41:33 AM
From The Guardian:

"The Spanish government has withdrawn 9,000 Chinese-made coronavirus testing kits from use after it emerged that they had an accurate detection rate of just 30%."


FFS. I wonder if tests of similar shoddiness are being used in China? There seem to be a lot of reasons to wonder whether any of the figures we're seeing (of infection rates, or deaths) bear any relationship to reality!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on March 27, 2020, 11:26:38 AM
Quote from: sprout on March 25, 2020, 10:06:15 AM

I was wondering about CPAP machines in the same vein - could they be used as ventilators?  After noodling around on Google a bit, it seems like a maybe?  But you'd need to control aerosolization of respiratory fluids.

This CPAP manufacturer seems to be doing so (or retooling their products to work as ventilators) https://www.businessnewsaus.com.au/articles/resmed-ramps-up-ventilator-production-to-tackle-covid-19.html
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on March 27, 2020, 01:27:52 PM
In the pharmacy today: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/538250592963920136/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: backatit on March 27, 2020, 02:16:53 PM
My partner is sick now. He's got a fever and body aches, and a bit of chest pain (he's seen a teledoctor and they are advising him to self-isolate so we've moved him into the spare room which fortunately has an ensuite). I don't think I've ever wanted someone to have the actual flu before....
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on March 27, 2020, 02:23:47 PM
Very sorry to hear that.

Thinking of you both.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on March 27, 2020, 02:33:42 PM
Quote from: backatit on March 27, 2020, 02:16:53 PM
My partner is sick now. He's got a fever and body aches, and a bit of chest pain (he's seen a teledoctor and they are advising him to self-isolate so we've moved him into the spare room which fortunately has an ensuite). I don't think I've ever wanted someone to have the actual flu before....

Maybe you have already been told this, but can you get a pulse oximeter? They are available from places like CVS and Amazon. A thermometer and pulse oximeter are two pieces of equipment that will provide very helpful information to the physicians about whether your partner should be hospitalized.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: backatit on March 27, 2020, 03:09:10 PM
Quote from: spork on March 27, 2020, 02:33:42 PM
Quote from: backatit on March 27, 2020, 02:16:53 PM
My partner is sick now. He's got a fever and body aches, and a bit of chest pain (he's seen a teledoctor and they are advising him to self-isolate so we've moved him into the spare room which fortunately has an ensuite). I don't think I've ever wanted someone to have the actual flu before....

Maybe you have already been told this, but can you get a pulse oximeter? They are available from places like CVS and Amazon. A thermometer and pulse oximeter are two pieces of equipment that will provide very helpful information to the physicians about whether your partner should be hospitalized.

They seem to be sold out both locally and on amazon (I'm trying to find one in a more out of the way sort of place, now, and will post on Nextdoor to see if anyone has a spare). I had been trying to find one before this, but they've been gone for a while now, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on March 31, 2020, 01:12:00 AM
How are things now, backatit?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on March 31, 2020, 08:13:02 AM
Quote from: backatit on March 27, 2020, 03:09:10 PM
They seem to be sold out both locally and on amazon (I'm trying to find one in a more out of the way sort of place, now, and will post on Nextdoor to see if anyone has a spare). I had been trying to find one before this, but they've been gone for a while now, unfortunately.
Have you looked at eBay? Looks like there's a large supply there: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=pulse+oximeter&_sacat=0&rt=nc&LH_BIN=1
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: backatit on March 31, 2020, 08:42:40 AM
Quote from: pigou on March 31, 2020, 08:13:02 AM
Quote from: backatit on March 27, 2020, 03:09:10 PM
They seem to be sold out both locally and on amazon (I'm trying to find one in a more out of the way sort of place, now, and will post on Nextdoor to see if anyone has a spare). I had been trying to find one before this, but they've been gone for a while now, unfortunately.
Have you looked at eBay? Looks like there's a large supply there: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=pulse+oximeter&_sacat=0&rt=nc&LH_BIN=1

Thanks, I hadn't thought to look there (I haven't shopped ebay in yonks!). You're a lifesaver (perhaps literally :D). We're actually both doing a bit better, fortunately, but someone else might need it or we might relapse, which I've heard is unfortunately common.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on March 31, 2020, 06:31:48 PM
Quote from: zyzzx on March 25, 2020, 05:34:24 AM
Quote from: Caracal on March 25, 2020, 04:48:55 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 25, 2020, 03:47:28 AM
Just popping in from the rest of the Internet to report on the innumeracy of  the general populace.

A good one: "They had 5,000 new cases yesterday! Just because the new case numbers are lower doesn't mean they are flattening the curve." Actually, yes, that is exactly what that means.

Or: "No one is reporting that there are 100,000 recoveries. We need to stop cowering in our basements!" Yeah, 110,00 recoveries actually, but over 19,000 death which makes for a case fatality rate of 15%. So, 100,000 recoveries = not such great news after all.

This is innumeracy too. If you divide fatality rates by total number of cases, you could be underestimating fatality rate early on if there are lots of people who have recently gotten sick, those people skew young and if testing has been extensive. However, if you only count resolved cases when numbers have been rapidly increasing, especially if lots of sick people aren't being tested, you are going to get some really distorted numbers. You start getting deaths before you get recoveries.

None of this back of the envelope math is actually how epidemiologists figure out what a real fatality rate is though. To do that you have to find ways of estimating the actual number of people infected. I'm not going to pretend to have any sort of expertise, but I saw various people who do on Twitter saying that they think a study that did this through various methods and estimated a death rate of a bit over one percent in Hubei is probably the most accurate measurement of the death rate there. It doesn't do any good to pretend this isn't a big deal, but it also isn't helpful to overestimate the bad effects either.

With South Korea testing like crazy, seems like they should have the best handle on numbers of infected. They did aggressive testing of contacts, etc. and if they had missed a lot of asymptomatic cases, it seems unlikely that the new cases would be so low now. They are also well past their peak, so a large proportion of their cases have been resolved. Their death/recovery is 3.3% and death/cases is 1.4%. The first number will continue to go down, and the second number will continue to go up (assuming they don't get a second wave of cases), putting the final rate somewhere in between.
Similarly, the cruise ship where everyone was tested now has a death/case rate of 1.4%, which also still has the potential to increase.

So yeah, while we don't know the real death rate yet, we're not totally clueless. Best case scenarios where everyone can still receive top-quality care, and it seems like 1-2%. As health care systems get overwhelmed, this will go up.

Actually, one thing I have been wondering (and have not seen discussed) is how the case fatality rate of typical seasonal flus as well as epidemic flus are calculated. I have seen .1% cited as the case fatality rate for the former and 2.5% for the Spanish flu. But do these rates include all (or many) of the asymptomatic infections? I am thinking not — particularly in the case of the Spanish flu. Were there people who had the Spanish flu and were asymptomatic? Probably no way of knowing. I would also think it highly unlikely they were included in the CFR, if they existed. But how about H1N1 cousins of the Spanish flu? Can people be infected with H1N1 flu and remain asymptomatic? Are these cases included in the flu's case fatality rate?

I am bringing this up because it seems like one of the key things people do with various possible COVID-19 CFRs is turn around and compare them with those of various flus (generally with the intention to minimize COVID). For example, the CFR for the Spanish flu was 2.5%, but when you really test everyone, as they did in South Korea, the CFR for COVID-19 is much lower — only .4%. But, really, apples and oranges are being compared here —- unless all the asymptomatic or mild "cases" of the Spanish Flu were counted too, which I doubt.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on March 31, 2020, 07:00:12 PM
Some of those questions are probably unanswerable, since we can't go back in time and retest for Spanish flu.

I've heard various arguments that Covid-19 is no worse than the flu, and I'm in no position to judge about fatality rates. What I do see is that thousands are dying from Covid-19, at a nastily accelerating rate. And because there is no vaccine still hardly any appreciable rates of immunity (and indeed it hasn't even been firmly established that surviving it confers immunity, though we hope so) — a huge percentage of the population is likely to get it, which is not the case with the flu.  If the flu were as transmissible and we were as vulnerable to it as to Covid-19, even the flu wouldn't be "just the flu." It would be something to be feared and avoided much more than it is now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on March 31, 2020, 07:17:12 PM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 31, 2020, 06:31:48 PM
Actually, one thing I have been wondering (and have not seen discussed) is how the case fatality rate of typical seasonal flus as well as epidemic flus are calculated.

For seasonal flu, here's how the CDC arrives at its estimates. (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/how-cdc-estimates.htm)

For the 1918 flu pandemic, there are numerous published papers giving (a wide range of) estimates and detailing the methodology used to estimate overall mortality and case fatality rates, some of which you can find here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=1918+influenza+pandemic+mortality).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 01, 2020, 05:18:48 AM
Thanks for the link, namazu. I had been wondering the same thing.

For this current pandemic, I'm feeling the % death rate being put out for many countries must be at this stage meaningless (given different rates of testing). Surely we will only really know the impact in about a year when we can compare the overall national mortality rate for 2020 with 2019 and see the difference?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on April 01, 2020, 05:25:35 AM
Quote from: backatit on March 31, 2020, 08:42:40 AM
Quote from: pigou on March 31, 2020, 08:13:02 AM
Quote from: backatit on March 27, 2020, 03:09:10 PM
They seem to be sold out both locally and on amazon (I'm trying to find one in a more out of the way sort of place, now, and will post on Nextdoor to see if anyone has a spare). I had been trying to find one before this, but they've been gone for a while now, unfortunately.
Have you looked at eBay? Looks like there's a large supply there: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=pulse+oximeter&_sacat=0&rt=nc&LH_BIN=1

Thanks, I hadn't thought to look there (I haven't shopped ebay in yonks!). You're a lifesaver (perhaps literally :D). We're actually both doing a bit better, fortunately, but someone else might need it or we might relapse, which I've heard is unfortunately common.

Never heard "in yonks" but love the way it rolls off the tongue!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 01, 2020, 05:39:26 AM
Quote from: namazu on March 31, 2020, 07:17:12 PM
Quote from: Treehugger on March 31, 2020, 06:31:48 PM
Actually, one thing I have been wondering (and have not seen discussed) is how the case fatality rate of typical seasonal flus as well as epidemic flus are calculated.

For seasonal flu, here's how the CDC arrives at its estimates. (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/how-cdc-estimates.htm)

For the 1918 flu pandemic, there are numerous published papers giving (a wide range of) estimates and detailing the methodology used to estimate overall mortality and case fatality rates, some of which you can find here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=1918+influenza+pandemic+mortality).

It does highlight the really basic problems with the whole question. Nobody thinks it would be a good idea to try to estimate flu mortality with the number of confirmed cases as the denominator, because they know they are only getting confirming a minority of the total cases. There's no really good reason for most people to go to the doctor when they have flu symptoms. I always go, but that's just because I'm a worrier and want to hear a medical professional tell me that I seem normal sick and not alarming sick.

This is obviously much worse than normal flu, but it also has a really wide range of symptoms. Even in places like South Korea where they are testing a ton of people, they are still probably missing people who have mildish symptoms are asymptomatic, or very lightly symptomatic. There's also apparently a pretty high false negative rates for tests, maybe as high as 25 percent. You're just never going to get a reliable number by trying to do simple math, you have to do modeling of various sorts, and there's not enough data yet for these models to be particularly reliable.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 01, 2020, 05:46:03 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on April 01, 2020, 05:18:48 AM

For this current pandemic, I'm feeling the % death rate being put out for many countries must be at this stage meaningless (given different rates of testing). Surely we will only really know the impact in about a year when we can compare the overall national mortality rate for 2020 with 2019 and see the difference?

Even that might not tell you about COVID deaths per se. People might die at higher rates of other things if they are more reluctant to seek care, or if the medical system is under strain.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: HomunculusParty on April 01, 2020, 05:49:54 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 01, 2020, 05:46:03 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on April 01, 2020, 05:18:48 AM

For this current pandemic, I'm feeling the % death rate being put out for many countries must be at this stage meaningless (given different rates of testing). Surely we will only really know the impact in about a year when we can compare the overall national mortality rate for 2020 with 2019 and see the difference?

Even that might not tell you about COVID deaths per se. People might die at higher rates of other things if they are more reluctant to seek care, or if the medical system is under strain.

Yes, that's quite right. A family friend recently contracted an unrelated infection, but they were advised not to bring him to the overloaded hospital. It got rapidly worse, and he died two days after they finally brought him in. I know anecdote != data, but I'm sure others have experienced similar tragedies.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 01, 2020, 07:04:26 AM
Quote from: HomunculusParty on April 01, 2020, 05:49:54 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 01, 2020, 05:46:03 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on April 01, 2020, 05:18:48 AM

For this current pandemic, I'm feeling the % death rate being put out for many countries must be at this stage meaningless (given different rates of testing). Surely we will only really know the impact in about a year when we can compare the overall national mortality rate for 2020 with 2019 and see the difference?

Even that might not tell you about COVID deaths per se. People might die at higher rates of other things if they are more reluctant to seek care, or if the medical system is under strain.

Yes, that's quite right. A family friend recently contracted an unrelated infection, but they were advised not to bring him to the overloaded hospital. It got rapidly worse, and he died two days after they finally brought him in. I know anecdote != data, but I'm sure others have experienced similar tragedies.

Conversely I'm assuming that during the various lockdowns we will see a reduction in deaths from motor vehicle accidents.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 01, 2020, 08:20:25 AM
Great U.S. data projections here:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections (https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on April 01, 2020, 09:03:05 AM
Quote from: spork on April 01, 2020, 08:20:25 AM
Great U.S. data projections here:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections (https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections).

Agreed, but those 95% CI's are enormous.    I did not read what their underlying assumptions were but there's a lot of wiggle room in those numbers.  A few dozen more fundamentalist churches packing the pews for a couple more Sundays could blow these models to bits.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on April 02, 2020, 05:34:00 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on April 01, 2020, 09:03:05 AM
Quote from: spork on April 01, 2020, 08:20:25 AM
Great U.S. data projections here:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections (https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections).

Agreed, but those 95% CI's are enormous.    I did not read what their underlying assumptions were but there's a lot of wiggle room in those numbers.  A few dozen more fundamentalist churches packing the pews for a couple more Sundays could blow these models to bits.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-03-31/louisiana-pastor-says-hell-keep-violating-coronavirus-ban

And reduce the numbers of Trump voters, while further crashing our fragile health care system.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on April 02, 2020, 09:25:18 AM
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/daniel-finney/2020/04/02/coronavirus-in-iowa-ballet-dancer-performs-for-grandparents-des-moines-neighbors-dsmstrong/5097922002/

Nice, inspirational news story.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: alto_stratus on April 02, 2020, 10:41:17 AM
This is making its way around the interwebz. Fun flashback to some of our earlier fora days.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/robbie-robertson-the-weight-coronavirus-974210/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on April 02, 2020, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: alto_stratus on April 02, 2020, 10:41:17 AM
This is making its way around the interwebz. Fun flashback to some of our earlier fora days.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/robbie-robertson-the-weight-coronavirus-974210/

Here's another one.  Maybe the sweetest song ever from the Good Ol' Grateful Dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHo1fNnXFVU
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 04, 2020, 05:15:55 AM
Is anyone else freaked out by those logarithmic graphs that the FT keeps publishing and then get shared around?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on April 04, 2020, 07:10:21 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 02, 2020, 05:34:00 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on April 01, 2020, 09:03:05 AM
Quote from: spork on April 01, 2020, 08:20:25 AM
Great U.S. data projections here:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections (https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections).

Agreed, but those 95% CI's are enormous.    I did not read what their underlying assumptions were but there's a lot of wiggle room in those numbers.  A few dozen more fundamentalist churches packing the pews for a couple more Sundays could blow these models to bits.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-03-31/louisiana-pastor-says-hell-keep-violating-coronavirus-ban

And reduce the numbers of Trump voters, while further crashing our fragile health care system.

We live in an ironic age, but Trump losing the election because his voters were literally too stupid to live would really be something.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on April 04, 2020, 07:14:51 AM
Quote from: writingprof on April 04, 2020, 07:10:21 AM

We live in an ironic age, but Trump losing the election because his voters were literally too stupid to live would really be something.

Now that you mention it, it's inevitable that some analysis is going to be done after the election to try and estimate the "covid effect" in close races.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: paultuttle on April 04, 2020, 10:15:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 04, 2020, 07:14:51 AM
Quote from: writingprof on April 04, 2020, 07:10:21 AM

We live in an ironic age, but Trump losing the election because his voters were literally too stupid to live would really be something.

Now that you mention it, it's inevitable that some analysis is going to be done after the election to try and estimate the "covid effect" in close races.

The truly horrifying element for me is how completely expendable some Trumpists think the base is. What an extreme disregard for human life!

It's really Stalin-esque.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on April 04, 2020, 12:47:32 PM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on April 04, 2020, 05:15:55 AM
Is anyone else freaked out by those logarithmic graphs that the FT keeps publishing and then get shared around?

I have not seen the FT ones but the plots for Italy look hopeful.  Daily new cases have been constant for about 2 weeks.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on April 04, 2020, 03:00:00 PM
Quote from: paultuttle on April 04, 2020, 10:15:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 04, 2020, 07:14:51 AM
Quote from: writingprof on April 04, 2020, 07:10:21 AM

We live in an ironic age, but Trump losing the election because his voters were literally too stupid to live would really be something.

Now that you mention it, it's inevitable that some analysis is going to be done after the election to try and estimate the "covid effect" in close races.

The truly horrifying element for me is how completely expendable some Trumpists think the base is. What an extreme disregard for human life!

It's really Stalin-esque.

Well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few . . . never mind, let's change the subject to whether abortion is an essential service. As a conservative, I'm on firmer ground there.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on April 05, 2020, 06:26:25 AM
Quote from: writingprof on April 04, 2020, 03:00:00 PM
Quote from: paultuttle on April 04, 2020, 10:15:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 04, 2020, 07:14:51 AM
Quote from: writingprof on April 04, 2020, 07:10:21 AM

We live in an ironic age, but Trump losing the election because his voters were literally too stupid to live would really be something.

Now that you mention it, it's inevitable that some analysis is going to be done after the election to try and estimate the "covid effect" in close races.

The truly horrifying element for me is how completely expendable some Trumpists think the base is. What an extreme disregard for human life!

It's really Stalin-esque.

Well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few . . . never mind, let's change the subject to whether abortion is an essential service. As a conservative, I'm on firmer ground there.

As usual, you are on thin ice.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: RatGuy on April 05, 2020, 07:47:22 AM
Serious question: How long do the experts think Covid19 has been in the States? I'm thinking that I heard that the "first cases" were in Washington State in late January. But I'm thinking back to a colleague who was out the the first two weeks of the term, and how many of my students went to the clinic only for the diagnosis to be "its a virus, but we only know it's not the flu." With so many of our students being from out of state, what's the likelihood that some of these students were infected over the holidays -- and we just didn't know what it was?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 05, 2020, 08:22:16 AM
Quote from: RatGuy on April 05, 2020, 07:47:22 AM
Serious question: How long do the experts think Covid19 has been in the States? I'm thinking that I heard that the "first cases" were in Washington State in late January. But I'm thinking back to a colleague who was out the the first two weeks of the term, and how many of my students went to the clinic only for the diagnosis to be "its a virus, but we only know it's not the flu." With so many of our students being from out of state, what's the likelihood that some of these students were infected over the holidays -- and we just didn't know what it was?

Given that Covid-19 was spreading in Hubei province as early as mid-November (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back), and the many tens of thousands of people per month traveling between the USA and China, I would not be surprised if SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in the USA by early December.

Edited to add: we've had a worse than average flu season in the USA -- in terms of number of doctor's office visits for influenza-like illness. On my campus there was an unusually large number of students getting sick with generic dorm-crud infections throughout the first half of the semester (described by campus health clinic personnel as "flu" but probably not actual influenza). But these students missed at most a week classes, many went home to recuperate, and none ended up on ventilators or dead.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on April 05, 2020, 08:46:10 AM
At this point, it can only be speculation, and I m reminded that "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." 
I was reading about the length or liife cycle of the illness. It seems that the worst hits about days 7 and 8, so if the students were better in a week, it may not have been CV19. However, most of what I was reading was about the people that were hospitalized. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on April 05, 2020, 09:35:29 AM
Quote from: RatGuy on April 05, 2020, 07:47:22 AM
Serious question: How long do the experts think Covid19 has been in the States? I'm thinking that I heard that the "first cases" were in Washington State in late January. But I'm thinking back to a colleague who was out the the first two weeks of the term, and how many of my students went to the clinic only for the diagnosis to be "its a virus, but we only know it's not the flu." With so many of our students being from out of state, what's the likelihood that some of these students were infected over the holidays -- and we just didn't know what it was?

Now you got me thinking.  I do remember an unusually high number of absences due to some "flu bug" going around but I am not sure if it was this year or last year.  Eventually the virus experts might figure this out as more data becomes available.  They might be able to figure this out if tissue samples were preserved from autopsies.   
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: fourhats on April 05, 2020, 10:44:27 AM
QuoteNever heard "in yonks" but love the way it rolls off the tongue!

Meant to jump in earlier on this one. It's a Britishism, short for "in donkey's years." Apparently donkeys live a long time.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on April 05, 2020, 11:12:22 AM
Quote from: spork on April 05, 2020, 08:22:16 AM
Quote from: RatGuy on April 05, 2020, 07:47:22 AM
Serious question: How long do the experts think Covid19 has been in the States? I'm thinking that I heard that the "first cases" were in Washington State in late January. But I'm thinking back to a colleague who was out the the first two weeks of the term, and how many of my students went to the clinic only for the diagnosis to be "its a virus, but we only know it's not the flu." With so many of our students being from out of state, what's the likelihood that some of these students were infected over the holidays -- and we just didn't know what it was?

Given that Covid-19 was spreading in Hubei province as early as mid-November (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back), and the many tens of thousands of people per month traveling between the USA and China, I would not be surprised if SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in the USA by early December.

Edited to add: we've had a worse than average flu season in the USA -- in terms of number of doctor's office visits for influenza-like illness. On my campus there was an unusually large number of students getting sick with generic dorm-crud infections throughout the first half of the semester (described by campus health clinic personnel as "flu" but probably not actual influenza). But these students missed at most a week classes, many went home to recuperate, and none ended up on ventilators or dead.
In addition to the several strains of flu that had been going around, there are numerous other respiratory viruses that circulate in any given year.  Adenovirus (https://www.cdc.gov/adenovirus/index.html) and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) (https://www.cdc.gov/rsv/index.html) are two that come to mind. 

So while it is likely that some early COVID-19 cases were missed, it is probably more likely that people who were sick earlier in the fall/winter had something else.

When we have valid, reliable, widely-available antibody tests, it will be much easier to get a sense of the scope of infection in the population.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on April 05, 2020, 11:59:05 AM
Quote from: namazu on April 05, 2020, 11:12:22 AM
When we have valid, reliable, widely-available antibody tests, it will be much easier to get a sense of the scope of infection in the population.

When do you reckon that will be?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 05, 2020, 12:14:04 PM
Quote from: spork on April 05, 2020, 08:22:16 AM
Quote from: RatGuy on April 05, 2020, 07:47:22 AM
Serious question: How long do the experts think Covid19 has been in the States? I'm thinking that I heard that the "first cases" were in Washington State in late January. But I'm thinking back to a colleague who was out the the first two weeks of the term, and how many of my students went to the clinic only for the diagnosis to be "its a virus, but we only know it's not the flu." With so many of our students being from out of state, what's the likelihood that some of these students were infected over the holidays -- and we just didn't know what it was?

Given that Covid-19 was spreading in Hubei province as early as mid-November (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back), and the many tens of thousands of people per month traveling between the USA and China, I would not be surprised if SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in the USA by early December.

Edited to add: we've had a worse than average flu season in the USA -- in terms of number of doctor's office visits for influenza-like illness. On my campus there was an unusually large number of students getting sick with generic dorm-crud infections throughout the first half of the semester (described by campus health clinic personnel as "flu" but probably not actual influenza). But these students missed at most a week classes, many went home to recuperate, and none ended up on ventilators or dead.

No, almost certainly not. I should say that I'm the furthest thing from an expert on this, however there is actually pretty clear evidence that can tell us about how the virus has spread and when.
First of all the way exponential growth works is that it takes time for cases to build to the point where lots of people would be getting sick. The estimates are that this emerged around late November and it wasn't till late December that there were enough cases that it was obvious something was going on. If a few hundred people have something in China, it isn't particularly likely to end up in other places, that only starts happening when the numbers get much higher. Even when that does happen, it would just be a few cases at first. Not enough that tons of college students would be getting sick.

But, there's actually clearer evidence than that. People have been sequencing the genes of the virus and pinpointing mutations to see how it has spread. https://nextstrain.org/ncov

Basically you can look at these and know that the strains circulating in the US almost certainly weren't here before Late January at the very earliest, and probably it was more like mid February. Even at those early dates, we would have just been talking about a few people.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mahagonny on April 05, 2020, 12:35:21 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 05, 2020, 06:26:25 AM
Quote from: writingprof on April 04, 2020, 03:00:00 PM
Quote from: paultuttle on April 04, 2020, 10:15:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 04, 2020, 07:14:51 AM
Quote from: writingprof on April 04, 2020, 07:10:21 AM

We live in an ironic age, but Trump losing the election because his voters were literally too stupid to live would really be something.

Now that you mention it, it's inevitable that some analysis is going to be done after the election to try and estimate the "covid effect" in close races.

The truly horrifying element for me is how completely expendable some Trumpists think the base is. What an extreme disregard for human life!

It's really Stalin-esque.

Well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few . . . never mind, let's change the subject to whether abortion is an essential service. As a conservative, I'm on firmer ground there.

As usual, you are on thin ice.

I wonder how many conservatives in the academic life just keep their views to themselves in the land that loves diversity.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on April 05, 2020, 01:56:03 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 05, 2020, 12:35:21 PM
I wonder how many conservatives in the academic life just keep their views to themselves in the land that loves diversity.

This is one of my favorite subjects! The short answer is, we're everywhere, and our numbers are growing. And because we've trained ourselves to make woke noises from time to time, you'll never spot us. We'll just linger, biding our time, honing our outlawed arguments, until our enemies relax. Then we'll pounce.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on April 05, 2020, 02:00:20 PM
Quote from: writingprof on April 05, 2020, 01:56:03 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 05, 2020, 12:35:21 PM
I wonder how many conservatives in the academic life just keep their views to themselves in the land that loves diversity.

This is one of my favorite subjects! The short answer is, we're everywhere, and our numbers are growing. And because we've trained ourselves to make woke noises from time to time, you'll never spot us. We'll just linger, biding our time, honing our outlawed arguments, until our enemies relax. Then we'll pounce.

Even middle-of-the-road people are in the same boat; when expressing anything other than the progressive mantra will get someone villified all kinds of people will just remain silent.

Acquiesence <> agreement
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on April 05, 2020, 02:08:40 PM
I worry not so much about the so-called progressive mantra in higher ed:

-The academy has always been nuts and ignored in real life.

-The main centers of the mantra are private, expensive places. Let them pay for their own nonsense.

-Most important, the mantra that is taught does nothing specific for the economic well being of graduates. The mantra will be competed away without massive additional state support, which I do not see coming. [If I'm wrong about this last, all bets are off.]

Disclaimer: Along with Freddy Hayek, I am not a conservative. :-)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on April 05, 2020, 02:49:08 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on April 05, 2020, 11:59:05 AM
Quote from: namazu on April 05, 2020, 11:12:22 AM
When we have valid, reliable, widely-available antibody tests, it will be much easier to get a sense of the scope of infection in the population.
When do you reckon that will be?
Good question!

A few labs have developed tests already, though there may still be validation and production steps required before those tests can be deployed broadly and with confidence.

The CDC has just started conducting serosurveys (https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/04/cdc-launches-studies-to-get-more-precise-count-of-undetected-covid-19-cases/).  Hopefully we'll know more soon (over the next few months). 

Of course, knowing that infection was widespread in your region and knowing for sure whether you personally have been infected are two different things. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 05, 2020, 02:50:47 PM
Quote from: writingprof on April 05, 2020, 01:56:03 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 05, 2020, 12:35:21 PM
I wonder how many conservatives in the academic life just keep their views to themselves in the land that loves diversity.

This is one of my favorite subjects! The short answer is, we're everywhere, and our numbers are growing. And because we've trained ourselves to make woke noises from time to time, you'll never spot us. We'll just linger, biding our time, honing our outlawed arguments, until our enemies relax. Then we'll pounce.

This sounds like a virus. Or a parasite. Watch out!

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on April 05, 2020, 04:44:52 PM
Quote from: spork on April 05, 2020, 02:50:47 PM
Quote from: writingprof on April 05, 2020, 01:56:03 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 05, 2020, 12:35:21 PM
I wonder how many conservatives in the academic life just keep their views to themselves in the land that loves diversity.

This is one of my favorite subjects! The short answer is, we're everywhere, and our numbers are growing. And because we've trained ourselves to make woke noises from time to time, you'll never spot us. We'll just linger, biding our time, honing our outlawed arguments, until our enemies relax. Then we'll pounce.

This sounds like a virus. Or a parasite. Watch out!

Indeed. I make a new conservative every time I cough.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Wahoo Redux on April 05, 2020, 06:02:44 PM
Quote from: spork on April 05, 2020, 02:50:47 PM
Quote from: writingprof on April 05, 2020, 01:56:03 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 05, 2020, 12:35:21 PM
I wonder how many conservatives in the academic life just keep their views to themselves in the land that loves diversity.

This is one of my favorite subjects! The short answer is, we're everywhere, and our numbers are growing. And because we've trained ourselves to make woke noises from time to time, you'll never spot us. We'll just linger, biding our time, honing our outlawed arguments, until our enemies relax. Then we'll pounce.

This sounds like a virus. Or a parasite. Watch out!

Or a pipe dream.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on April 05, 2020, 09:05:25 PM
So now, we're all supposed to wear a mask when we go out.  But masks are all sold out so we're to MacGyver our own solutions.

I predict there's going to be a problem if I walk into a liquor store or a bank wearing a bandana and with my hands in my pockets.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: sprout on April 05, 2020, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on April 05, 2020, 09:05:25 PM
So now, we're all supposed to wear a mask when we go out.  But masks are all sold out so we're to MacGyver our own solutions.

I literally spent all day today hand-stitching ONE.  I'm very proud of it, but - ain't got time for this ****.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on April 06, 2020, 02:28:04 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on April 05, 2020, 09:05:25 PM
So now, we're all supposed to wear a mask when we go out.  But masks are all sold out so we're to MacGyver our own solutions.

I predict there's going to be a problem if I walk into a liquor store or a bank wearing a bandana and with my hands in my pockets.

Indeed! And here the cops are stopping people on the street to ask whether they're on essential business. Apparently some guy got busted when he said he was going to meet his drug dealer.

I wonder how the cops would respond to someone wearing a bandana who said they were heading to the bank... :-)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on April 06, 2020, 02:38:12 AM
Yep... we are entering a Twilight Zone phase when the police stop the people NOT wearing masks! 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 06, 2020, 05:04:55 AM
Photos on social media suggest some rather creative alternatives have been tried (plastic bags, scuba masks, bras, bikini briefs, paper bags).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on April 06, 2020, 05:16:55 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on April 05, 2020, 09:05:25 PM
So now, we're all supposed to wear a mask when we go out.  But masks are all sold out so we're to MacGyver our own solutions.

I predict there's going to be a problem if I walk into a liquor store or a bank wearing a bandana and with my hands in my pockets.

I did and they didn't give me a second glance.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morris Zapp on April 06, 2020, 07:01:51 AM
My husband is required to wear one at work with the military. He was informed of this last evening. He went to work this morning wearing my pink flamingo running scarf that you can pull up over your face. So professional
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 06, 2020, 08:49:24 AM
USPS mailman is now wearing a mask.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on April 06, 2020, 11:06:03 AM
I had to go drop a package off at UPS today. Only 2 customers allowed inside at a time. The rest wait outside on the designated x marks on the ground. All employees wearing masks and gloves. Although one had an N95 mask he was wearing improperly, without the bottom strap engaged.

This is in a state that only got a stay at home order on April 1.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on April 06, 2020, 12:27:25 PM
Boris Johnson now in Intensive Care.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 06, 2020, 12:58:43 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on April 06, 2020, 12:27:25 PM
Boris Johnson now in Intensive Care.

Probably under the care of a medical team that is substantially not of native British origin.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on April 06, 2020, 02:16:57 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on April 06, 2020, 12:27:25 PM
Boris Johnson now in Intensive Care.

I can't stand his political grandstanding but I would not wish this on anyone.

I'm so sorry to hear this.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: onthefringe on April 06, 2020, 07:27:41 PM
Today in the grocery store, I was wearing a home made mask, but few other people were. I was excessively annoyed by the woman wearing an N95 mask around her neck. And I called the store central number to suggest that maybe at least the employees packing up groceries for delivery (potentially to elderly or immune compromised customers) should be wearing gloves and masks.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 07, 2020, 02:55:23 AM
People riding horses outside as usual. Haven't seen any delivery people or trash collectors wearing masks.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 07, 2020, 06:29:28 AM
Quote from: onthefringe on April 06, 2020, 07:27:41 PM
Today in the grocery store, I was wearing a home made mask, but few other people were. I was excessively annoyed by the woman wearing an N95 mask around her neck. And I called the store central number to suggest that maybe at least the employees packing up groceries for delivery (potentially to elderly or immune compromised customers) should be wearing gloves and masks.

I actually don't think either of those is particularly necessary or useful for delivery. The only way gloves would be effective is if the person took them off in the proper way after every thing they touched and then put on a whole different pair of gloves, which is obviously impractical if you want these people to actually get their deliveries. It would probably be better for those people to just go wash their hands every fifteen minutes or something, which perhaps they are doing. The masks might be a better idea, but even there it has pretty limited benefits. The article I read about packages said that really you have to have an almost perfect chain of transmission to get something that way. A person has to sneeze on something, you have to touch it and then you have to put your hand on your face. A person can totally eliminate that very small risk, just by taking stuff out of the bags, washing down the counter surface, and then just washing your hands after you handle any food packaging.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on April 07, 2020, 08:27:29 AM
I'm not close to any of our neighbors, but last night there was a knock on the door and a neighborhood couple were going around distributing face masks they had made.  They gave us 2 masks and moved on.  No idea which house they were from.

How am I supposed to maintain my façade of misanthropic cynicism if people do things like this for complete strangers? 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: onthefringe on April 07, 2020, 09:33:57 AM
Quote from: mamselle on April 06, 2020, 02:16:57 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on April 06, 2020, 12:27:25 PM
Boris Johnson now in Intensive Care.

I can't stand his political grandstanding but I would not wish this on anyone.

I'm so sorry to hear this.

M.

My frontal lobes agree with you. My lizard brain is cackling in inappropriate glee that no doubt means I am a horrifying person at heart...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ciao_yall on April 07, 2020, 12:12:31 PM
I made a new friend in line at Safeway. She offered to make me and hubby some masks when she saw my sad napkin + headband contraption. I am going to hook her up with our transfer center to get her fixed up with a plan to transfer to State and get her Bachelor's degree.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 07, 2020, 12:17:21 PM
State authorities announced that six people from my neighborhood are dead from Covid-19.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on April 07, 2020, 01:22:22 PM
Here's a question for everyone: Is there any reason a university should decide now to move fall classes online? I can't think of one, and yet I hear rumblings.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on April 07, 2020, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: writingprof on April 07, 2020, 01:22:22 PM
Here's a question for everyone: Is there any reason a university should decide now to move fall classes online? I can't think of one, and yet I hear rumblings.

I'm a lab instructor. For summer, I have one lab to "virtualize". If I have to virtualize labs for several courses in September, I can't wait until mid-August to figure it out.

I would guess any courses with labs or other hands-on stuff are in a similar boat.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on April 07, 2020, 02:19:13 PM
I find it difficult to understand how at least some labs can be virtualized. Sure, the instructor can demonstrate. But what are students to do? I'm thinking of a chem lab. I'm seriously interested intellectually, not practically, for I don't run a lab.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on April 07, 2020, 02:27:27 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 07, 2020, 02:19:13 PM
I find it difficult to understand how at least some labs can be virtualized. Sure, the instructor can demonstrate. But what are students to do? I'm thinking of a chem lab. I'm seriously interested intellectually, not practically, for I don't run a lab.

I can't speak for chem, but with my physics lab for the summer, since a couple of lab exercises are already on data analysis, those can stay the same whether students generate their own data or have it given to them. I'm working on a simple simulation of an experiement online; I can incorporate randomness in the readings. The one thing the "virtual" experiment will allow is generating as much data as they can stand, rather than being limited by the physical logistics of the lab. (Important point, as I see it: virtual labs will make sense to focus on different factors than actual labs, so students may get more of some things out of the experience while obviously getting less (or none) of others.)


I'll see how it goes......
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on April 07, 2020, 02:32:31 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 07, 2020, 02:27:27 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 07, 2020, 02:19:13 PM
I find it difficult to understand how at least some labs can be virtualized. Sure, the instructor can demonstrate. But what are students to do? I'm thinking of a chem lab. I'm seriously interested intellectually, not practically, for I don't run a lab.

... Important point, as I see it: virtual labs will make sense to focus on different factors than actual labs, so students may get more of some things out of the experience while obviously getting less (or none) of others.)


Excellent point, the Law of Comparative Advantage in yet another guise! Should have thought of it myself. :-)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on April 07, 2020, 04:27:33 PM
Quote from: spork on April 07, 2020, 12:17:21 PM
State authorities announced that six people from my neighborhood are dead from Covid-19.

I'm sorry for your neighborhood's loss.

The town next to mine announced their first known death yesterday.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on April 07, 2020, 07:17:58 PM
Quote from: writingprof on April 07, 2020, 01:22:22 PM
Here's a question for everyone: Is there any reason a university should decide now to move fall classes online? I can't think of one, and yet I hear rumblings.

My university delayed Summer 1 registration a week because entire session is moving to online. The delay was apparently because registrar's office had to do massive updates to registration system so all classes would show as online. I'm not sure why that was essential, but maybe you're hearing rumblings because of similar discussions about time needed for system updates?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on April 07, 2020, 07:43:16 PM
All of our summer courses are labelled as "Remote", which is not the same as Online. Only those courses originally scheduled to be delivered Online receive that designation. I wonder if this is an accreditation thing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 08, 2020, 01:49:11 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on April 07, 2020, 07:43:16 PM
All of our summer courses are labelled as "Remote", which is not the same as Online. Only those courses originally scheduled to be delivered Online receive that designation. I wonder if this is an accreditation thing.

Probably. Some places also require instructors to have different training to officially teach "ONLINE" courses.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on April 08, 2020, 04:12:50 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on April 08, 2020, 01:49:11 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on April 07, 2020, 07:43:16 PM
All of our summer courses are labelled as "Remote", which is not the same as Online. Only those courses originally scheduled to be delivered Online receive that designation. I wonder if this is an accreditation thing.

Probably. Some places also require instructors to have different training to officially teach "ONLINE" courses.

At our place (in Canada) it's an indication that the course wasn't designed to be online, so it's probably a little rough around the edges. (There are actually grants people can get normally to put a course online, reflecting the amount of work it takes to do properly.)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on April 08, 2020, 05:12:23 AM
Quote from: mamselle on April 07, 2020, 04:27:33 PM
Quote from: spork on April 07, 2020, 12:17:21 PM
State authorities announced that six people from my neighborhood are dead from Covid-19.

I'm sorry for your neighborhood's loss.

The town next to mine announced their first known death yesterday.

M.

I am working with a few others to set up a FB site for our county to attempt to collect and disseminate Covid 19 information.  Would you all PM me about how the information was disseminated in your areas?  Thank you,
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Scotia on April 08, 2020, 05:58:39 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on April 07, 2020, 07:43:16 PM
All of our summer courses are labelled as "Remote", which is not the same as Online. Only those courses originally scheduled to be delivered Online receive that designation. I wonder if this is an accreditation thing.

It may be to make easer to change courses back to "face-to-face" (or whatever they are normally labelled) in systems once we are able to return to teaching on campus. Instead of having to manually search through courses because all are now labelled "online" it will be possible to do a simple global search and replace for "remote" so that the courses that are normally taught online are untouched by the changes.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on April 08, 2020, 07:06:20 AM
Just to make sure no stone is
unturned. I listened to a BBC guest as he, I think, gave protocol before C-19 possible sufferers sought medical help. In that was noted " a continuos spell of coughing lasting for more than an hour". Could that be linked symptomatticaly or treatmentwise to
whooping cough. I've not
heard mention of that malady's medicines or treatments being applied against the Caronavirus.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on April 08, 2020, 07:46:24 AM
Quote from: Economizer on April 08, 2020, 07:06:20 AM
Just to make sure no stone is
unturned. I listened to a BBC guest as he, I think, gave protocol before C-19 possible sufferers sought medical help. In that was noted " a continuos spell of coughing lasting for more than an hour". Could that be linked symptomatticaly or treatmentwise to
whooping cough. I've not heard mention of that malady's medicines or treatments being applied against the Caronavirus.
Whooping cough (https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/index.html) is cause by a bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, and there is a vaccine to prevent it.  In general, antibiotics used to treat bacterial infections don't work to treat viruses. 

Whooping cough also tends to be most severe in young children, whereas this coronavirus tends to be most severe in older people. 

While there may be some similarities -- both affect the lungs and cause a cough, and severe cases may require oxygen support in a hospital -- it's not likely that there would be much cross-over in potential medical treatments, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on April 08, 2020, 07:49:12 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 08, 2020, 05:12:23 AM
I am working with a few others to set up a FB site for our county to attempt to collect and disseminate Covid 19 information.  Would you all PM me about how the information was disseminated in your areas?  Thank you,
My county publishes a map and table with case counts by zip code.  I've seen other county health departments with maps showing case counts by town.  I can PM you some examples, if you'd like.  Of course, if your county or state's health department doesn't already publish this info somewhere, you'd likely have to source it from news reports.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on April 08, 2020, 08:22:24 AM
Quote from: namazu on April 08, 2020, 07:46:24 AM
Quote from: Economizer on April 08, 2020, 07:06:20 AM
Just to make sure no stone is
unturned. I listened to a BBC guest as he, I think, gave protocol before C-19 possible sufferers sought medical help. In that was noted " a continuos spell of coughing lasting for more than an hour". Could that be linked symptomatticaly or treatmentwise to
whooping cough. I've not heard mention of that malady's medicines or treatments being applied against the Caronavirus.
Whooping cough (https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/index.html) is cause by a bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, and there is a vaccine to prevent it.  In general, antibiotics used to treat bacterial infections don't work to treat viruses. 

Whooping cough also tends to be most severe in young children, whereas this coronavirus tends to be most severe in older people. 

While there may be some similarities -- both affect the lungs and cause a cough, and severe cases may require oxygen support in a hospital -- it's not likely that there would be much cross-over in potential medical treatments, unfortunately.
OK, unlikely. Impossible? Thank you for your reply.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mahagonny on April 08, 2020, 08:34:14 AM
So when is the government going to send us free codeine (cough suppressant) so we don't infect others?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on April 08, 2020, 09:36:11 AM
QuoteSo when is the government going to send us free codeine (cough suppressant) so we don't infect others?
Quote


I have no idea what is being prescribed for treating the symptoms of CV19. I would think that codeine would not be ideal.  One of the symptoms is shortness of breath.  Things that would suppress ones ability to breath would not really be ideal.

What ARE doctors prescribing to treat the symptoms?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on April 08, 2020, 10:39:53 AM
Part of an email from a friend that HAS it!

"This is no picnic. The only thing they suggest, if not hospitalized, is over the counter pain relief of whatever brings you comfort. When I was in the hospital they told me that the steroids and z-packs they originally prescribed actually made the symptoms worse."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 08, 2020, 10:44:27 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 08, 2020, 05:12:23 AM
Quote from: mamselle on April 07, 2020, 04:27:33 PM
Quote from: spork on April 07, 2020, 12:17:21 PM
State authorities announced that six people from my neighborhood are dead from Covid-19.

I'm sorry for your neighborhood's loss.

The town next to mine announced their first known death yesterday.

M.

I am working with a few others to set up a FB site for our county to attempt to collect and disseminate Covid 19 information.  Would you all PM me about how the information was disseminated in your areas?  Thank you,

It was disseminated via the governor's office and broadcast in local media outlets.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on April 08, 2020, 11:01:05 AM
Still very few confirmed cases where we live.  Most suspected cases are coming back negative.  Just this morning I learned that a friend's husband has been hospitalized in the state capital with fluid on his lungs.  He has tested negative twice for Covid-19.  It's looking like he may have a cancerous mass.  Due to the epidemic, neither she nor anybody else has been allowed to be in the hospital with him.  It's a very hard situation for them.  They're now over two hours' drive apart.

Meanwhile my mother has been having to drive herself to the oncologist (again, over an hour away) for consultations, since she isn't allowed to have anybody with her.  Her treatments have been postponed until the end of this month in hopes of getting past the hospital lockdowns.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on April 08, 2020, 12:21:26 PM
I was tempted to start another thread, but I think between this one and the Hypochondriacs thread we are covered, so Im going to start here and see IF I get sufficient answers. 

I am concerned about the deaths of the 20-60 year olds.  NOt that Im not concerned with the others, but I see news items about the people in this category not making it. The news is sort of making obituary notices for these younger people, and I can not tell if these deaths are common or not.  So help me with these thoughts, please:

How common are deaths in the 20-60 group?  Are they making the news because it is a warning to the younger folk that they CAN get it AND DIE from it? 

OR
Is this a relatively rare event, such that the novelty is newsworthy?

For Instance.... Airplane crashes just about anywhere on the planet seem to make the news.  Not because they are common but because they are rare. Still, IF one were to see one crash on the news every 3 months, for instance, then one may conclude that these death machines are falling out of the sky every 90 days!  However, they make the news BECAUSE they are so rare.

SO... Are deaths in these age groups so tragic to justify being on the news (and thus justifying my great fear to be around anyone because everyone is a walking virus factory looking to contaminate and kill me!) or are they just so rare that these deaths, and the tragedy that they represent, are novel and deserve special mention?

With Boris Johnson, (MY age) in the ICU, I m more concerned!  I dont have all of the health support that would be available to the UK PM, and yet all the kings horses and all the kings men still didnt keep him safe from the ER and ICU!!

How scared should I be?  (Cautious 2-3?   Moderate?  4-6, or Nuclear 8-10?  --- it IS out to KILL me/us?)

Thoughts?  (should this be its own thread?)  Is the news overfocusing on the young deaths, or are all ages dropping dead in short order?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 08, 2020, 01:32:00 PM
QuoteIs the news overfocusing on the young deaths

Yes. They will tell us that 800 people died, but the story and the photo are about the young outlier.

Nobody is immune (as this is a new virus), but your chances of dying from it are low (even for the over 70 cohort, the death rate is something like 10%: so 90% survive).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on April 08, 2020, 01:35:18 PM
There are a number of analytical articles and websites on this.

I'll cite two but I do not have the epidemological background to determine how useful or reliable they might be.

   https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

and

   https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/03/23/a-mortality-perspective-on-covid-19-time-location-and-age/

might start to answer your question.

A couple of posters here might want to weigh in as to the hermeneutics.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on April 08, 2020, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 08, 2020, 05:12:23 AM
Quote from: mamselle on April 07, 2020, 04:27:33 PM
Quote from: spork on April 07, 2020, 12:17:21 PM
State authorities announced that six people from my neighborhood are dead from Covid-19.

I'm sorry for your neighborhood's loss.

The town next to mine announced their first known death yesterday.

M.

I am working with a few others to set up a FB site for our county to attempt to collect and disseminate Covid 19 information. Would you all PM me about how the information was disseminated in your areas?  Thank you,

Why would you need it.  Your state dept of public health is almost certain to have the most up to date data and information already.  All a Facebook page will get you is a selection of half baked conspiracy theories and the usual scientific and statistical ignorance about things most Americans can't understand.  By the time you can post who has masks or toilet paper in stock, the news will be out of data anyway.

This is worth a read:

What We Pretend to Know About the Corona Virus Could Kill Us (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-fake-news.html)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on April 08, 2020, 03:11:51 PM
Quote from: clean on April 08, 2020, 09:36:11 AM
QuoteSo when is the government going to send us free codeine (cough suppressant) so we don't infect others?
Quote


I have no idea what is being prescribed for treating the symptoms of CV19. I would think that codeine would not be ideal.  One of the symptoms is shortness of breath.  Things that would suppress ones ability to breath would not really be ideal.

What ARE doctors prescribing to treat the symptoms?

The most recent thinking is that cough suppressants are generally ineffective.  In high doses, Tessalon Perles (an ancient product now more commonly prescribed because it's non-narcotic and you know-- opioids) can be lethal.  Teens have been using Robitussin DM (dextromethorphan) to get high for the last few years -- Robo-Tripping.  As far as I can tell,treatment for Covid-19 is just supportive therapy - maintain airways and blood pressure, Tylenol + Motrin for the fever (lasts longer that way).  You can try DM syrup in the labeled dose if you want, but don't hold your breath as to how much help it's going to be.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 08, 2020, 07:35:06 PM
Quote from: clean on April 08, 2020, 12:21:26 PM
I was tempted to start another thread, but I think between this one and the Hypochondriacs thread we are covered, so Im going to start here and see IF I get sufficient answers. 

I am concerned about the deaths of the 20-60 year olds.  NOt that Im not concerned with the others, but I see news items about the people in this category not making it. The news is sort of making obituary notices for these younger people, and I can not tell if these deaths are common or not.  So help me with these thoughts, please:

How common are deaths in the 20-60 group?  Are they making the news because it is a warning to the younger folk that they CAN get it AND DIE from it? 

OR
Is this a relatively rare event, such that the novelty is newsworthy?

For Instance.... Airplane crashes just about anywhere on the planet seem to make the news.  Not because they are common but because they are rare. Still, IF one were to see one crash on the news every 3 months, for instance, then one may conclude that these death machines are falling out of the sky every 90 days!  However, they make the news BECAUSE they are so rare.

SO... Are deaths in these age groups so tragic to justify being on the news (and thus justifying my great fear to be around anyone because everyone is a walking virus factory looking to contaminate and kill me!) or are they just so rare that these deaths, and the tragedy that they represent, are novel and deserve special mention?

With Boris Johnson, (MY age) in the ICU, I m more concerned!  I dont have all of the health support that would be available to the UK PM, and yet all the kings horses and all the kings men still didnt keep him safe from the ER and ICU!!

How scared should I be?  (Cautious 2-3?   Moderate?  4-6, or Nuclear 8-10?  --- it IS out to KILL me/us?)

Thoughts?  (should this be its own thread?)  Is the news overfocusing on the young deaths, or are all ages dropping dead in short order?

The death rates by age in the US are about the same as everywhere else and they are pretty low for younger people without pre existing conditions. I think two things are going on. One is just that young people who get really sick are more newsworthy. A 42 year old who ends up in the ICU and survives is more likely to write about their experience on social media than a person in their 80s. I could be wrong about this, but my impression is also that younger people are more likely to get infected than older people, which would stand to reason. A person in their 30s is, on average, going to come into contact with a lot more people on an average day than someone in their 80s. So when you see reports that a fairly high percentage of hospitalized people are younger, a lot of that is just because they make up a large number of cases.

The other part of this is about the public health messaging. Public health messaging tends to be aimed at people who aren't concerned enough about their health, not people like me and you who are overly concerned. When some doctor says in the news that people shouldn't ignore persistent stomach pain, they are really talking to the guy who has had a terrible stomach ache for a year and figures there's no reason to bother to go to the doctor. The problem is that I hear that and start thinking "huh, well I did have a stomach ache the other night after I ate the nachos and the huge bowl of ice cream and then 5 days later, I didn't feel great on that day when I had a really stressful day, maybe I have stomach cancer..." Same thing here. They really want to persuade younger people that this isn't something they want to get, and that it can be serious. That's probably the right message for the knuckleheads hanging out at beaches, and its also true enough. This is a lot worse than the flu and you don't want to get it. But it is also true that the risk is relatively low if you're youngish and healthy















































































































Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on April 08, 2020, 07:59:31 PM
Quote from: clean on April 08, 2020, 12:21:26 PM
I was tempted to start another thread, but I think between this one and the Hypochondriacs thread we are covered, so Im going to start here and see IF I get sufficient answers. 

I am concerned about the deaths of the 20-60 year olds.  NOt that Im not concerned with the others, but I see news items about the people in this category not making it. The news is sort of making obituary notices for these younger people, and I can not tell if these deaths are common or not.  So help me with these thoughts, please:

How common are deaths in the 20-60 group?  Are they making the news because it is a warning to the younger folk that they CAN get it AND DIE from it? 

OR
Is this a relatively rare event, such that the novelty is newsworthy?

For Instance.... Airplane crashes just about anywhere on the planet seem to make the news.  Not because they are common but because they are rare. Still, IF one were to see one crash on the news every 3 months, for instance, then one may conclude that these death machines are falling out of the sky every 90 days!  However, they make the news BECAUSE they are so rare.

SO... Are deaths in these age groups so tragic to justify being on the news (and thus justifying my great fear to be around anyone because everyone is a walking virus factory looking to contaminate and kill me!) or are they just so rare that these deaths, and the tragedy that they represent, are novel and deserve special mention?

With Boris Johnson, (MY age) in the ICU, I m more concerned!  I dont have all of the health support that would be available to the UK PM, and yet all the kings horses and all the kings men still didnt keep him safe from the ER and ICU!!

How scared should I be?  (Cautious 2-3?   Moderate?  4-6, or Nuclear 8-10?  --- it IS out to KILL me/us?)

Thoughts?  (should this be its own thread?)  Is the news overfocusing on the young deaths, or are all ages dropping dead in short order?

According to my state Dept of Public Health, about 2/3 of those who test + are younger than 60 - roughly 700 vs 350.  The number of deaths is too small to be of much real use in determining risk but nearly all have been in those over 80, and mostly in nursing homes.

I'm not "that kind of doctor" but this will be close enough for our discussion here:

In general, with diseases like this, the young die due to an overwhelming immune response.  They drop their blood pressures, get shocky, don't perfuse their end organs due to the shock and expire despite heroic medical efforts.

The elderly die because they already have an existing cardiopulmonary or other problem. 

Dead is dead, but in general, you'll probably do better if you are young than if you have an underlying medical problem that is exacerbated by the virus.

I'm older than Boris and would put my personal concern level at 3.  Social distancing and soap & water are my friends and I will continue to employ them vigorously until this is over and/or they develop a vaccine and/or there is sufficient herd immunity in the community for me to pop up out of my bunker.

Then again, I don't live packed in with 8 million people in NYC.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on April 08, 2020, 09:58:10 PM
What is the recommended criteria for returning back to normal life according to the epidemic experts?  Is it only when we have a vaccine or just when active cases mostly disappear?    Suppose it was completely wiped out but then appears again in one city.  Do we then repeat all of the social distancing procedures again in the entire nation?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on April 08, 2020, 11:43:15 PM
I think, or at least hope that once this is 'under control', that we would revert to a S Korea model.  Heavy testing, and heavy contact tracing. IF someone comes down with anything looking like the illness, then the testing would kick in and find out quickly (unlike the early days here, where you had to meet criteria before you could even GET a test).  Contact tracing would seek out the people someone came in contact with and test them too. 

Once this is under control, this should not be as much of a problem.  We should have more testing kits and centers available once the flood is over, so this should not be as big a problem.

Of course social distancing will continue until there is a vaccine.  The 'stay home' orders may not need to continue once we are 'under control'  (I hope not longer than another six weeks, or June 1).  However, I think that people, and not the government, will still be leery.  Are you going to be venturing to a bar or movie theater with a lot of people you do not know sitting next to you?  Will you be in a rush to go to a restaurant for a sit down meal with lots of servers and other customers?    Will you fly anytime soon?  Take a cruise, anyone? 

And what if you are overweight/obese, diabetic or prediabetic, male,black, or have high blood pressure, more than one and are over 60?  These are the ones that seem to have a worse experience.  IF any of these are you, how cautious will you be? 

The earliest estimate for a wide spread vaccine is next January!  Are we patient enough?  Can we 'afford' to be patient, or will we return to the cartoon days of the headstone that says, "I died so that your 401k could live"? 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 09, 2020, 03:50:42 AM
I think after the first wave of infection SARS-CoV-2 will become like influenza -- a constant part of the natural environment that the public doesn't pay much attention to. I think that influenza kills ~ 15,000 people in the USA every year and it occasionally gets a brief mention in news outlets. Traffic fatalities and gun homicides/suicides, which occur at a greater rate, are mentioned even less frequently.

Supposedly the epidemiologist Michael Osterholm said on a cable show that in the USA Covid-19 will probably infect 50% of the population, 20% of those will get sick, 10% of those will be hospitalized and 1% of those hospitalized will die. That's ~ 33,000 killed by Covid-19 in the USA, which I think it a reasonable estimate.

I think Covid-19 has pointed out that the USA is, comparatively, a very unhealthy country. Major determinants of health lie totally outside our very expensive health care "system." Vast amounts of money are expended with very little effect on illnesses that are for the most part entirely preventable. But I doubt a pandemic is going to get people to wake up and smell the coffee.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 09, 2020, 05:56:36 AM
Quote from: spork on April 09, 2020, 03:50:42 AM
]

Supposedly the epidemiologist Michael Osterholm said on a cable show that in the USA Covid-19 will probably infect 50% of the population, 20% of those will get sick, 10% of those will be hospitalized and 1% of those hospitalized will die. That's ~ 33,000 killed by Covid-19 in the USA, which I think it a reasonable estimate.



Hmm, I obviously can't evaluate different estimates, but that seems, unfortunately, very low on hospitalizations vs deaths. In New York City about a fifth of those hospitalized have died. It is also way below most of the estimates I've seen, which again, I can't evaluate. To take an example, the Imperial College modeling people estimated that perhaps 15 percent of people in Spain were infected (that number has a really big confidence interval) Spain has had 15,000 deaths from COVID. The same percentage of the American Population would be over 100k just for 15 percent, never mind half the population. Again, I'm not trying to make estimates, just point out that I don't think those numbers make any sense.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on April 09, 2020, 05:58:46 AM
Quote from: namazu on April 08, 2020, 07:49:12 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 08, 2020, 05:12:23 AM
I am working with a few others to set up a FB site for our county to attempt to collect and disseminate Covid 19 information.  Would you all PM me about how the information was disseminated in your areas?  Thank you,
My county publishes a map and table with case counts by zip code.  I've seen other county health departments with maps showing case counts by town.  I can PM you some examples, if you'd like.  Of course, if your county or state's health department doesn't already publish this info somewhere, you'd likely have to source it from news reports.

Mostly, we sourcing from local gossip, unfortunately.  The state provides county level numbers but that's it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on April 09, 2020, 05:59:12 AM
Yesterday, CDC issued controversial guidance regarding essential workers who may have been exposed to the virus but do not have symptoms.  Examine the "printable flyer for workplaces:"

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/Essential-Critical-Workers_Dos-and-Donts.pdf

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/critical-workers/implementing-safety-practices.html

This guidance is inconsistent with prior emphases on tracing and 14 day quarantine for anyone exposed to a case.  There is a back story here and I'm wondering what the feds are up to.

I feel sorry for grocery workers, especially, and others.  Grocery workers deserve huge raises. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on April 09, 2020, 06:04:26 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on April 08, 2020, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 08, 2020, 05:12:23 AM
Quote from: mamselle on April 07, 2020, 04:27:33 PM
Quote from: spork on April 07, 2020, 12:17:21 PM
State authorities announced that six people from my neighborhood are dead from Covid-19.

I'm sorry for your neighborhood's loss.

The town next to mine announced their first known death yesterday.

M.

I am working with a few others to set up a FB site for our county to attempt to collect and disseminate Covid 19 information. Would you all PM me about how the information was disseminated in your areas?  Thank you,

Why would you need it.  Your state dept of public health is almost certain to have the most up to date data and information already.  All a Facebook page will get you is a selection of half baked conspiracy theories and the usual scientific and statistical ignorance about things most Americans can't understand.  By the time you can post who has masks or toilet paper in stock, the news will be out of data anyway.

This is worth a read:

What We Pretend to Know About the Corona Virus Could Kill Us (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-fake-news.html)

Unfortunately, all we know is the number of cases in the county.  The county Emergency Services office said there is no imminent health threat.  That pretty much says it all.  We're not concerned about TP.  Mostly, our goal is to consolidate information, not just on official cases, but food bank needs, domestic violence shelter needs, school food programs.....There is no one place in our miserably dysfunctional county that has the information..  The last posting on the County web site was March 20.  When I brought it up to a Supervisor (to whom I am related), he told me "Technically, that's not my area of responsibility."  That's where we are:  complete abrogation at all levels....
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 09, 2020, 06:40:51 AM
Quote from: clean on April 08, 2020, 11:43:15 PM


Of course social distancing will continue until there is a vaccine.  The 'stay home' orders may not need to continue once we are 'under control'  (I hope not longer than another six weeks, or June 1).  However, I think that people, and not the government, will still be leery.  Are you going to be venturing to a bar or movie theater with a lot of people you do not know sitting next to you?  Will you be in a rush to go to a restaurant for a sit down meal with lots of servers and other customers?    Will you fly anytime soon?  Take a cruise, anyone? 



If there was widespread, available and fast testing of symptomatic people and regular updating of those numbers? Then sure, I'd do some of those things if the numbers were low enough in my area. If, in this hopeful future world, I could know that there were lots of tests being run, but only five positives in the last week, and there was decent contact tracking, I could feel like while the risk of going to a restaurant or bar wasn't zero, it would be relatively low. I don't like crowded bars anyway...

Obviously flying might not seem like a good idea as long as there are places in the country with larger numbers of cases.

That said, it seems like what would probably happen would be very gradual relaxation of rules. That seems to be what is starting to be considered in places like Denmark. Maybe take away shelter in place orders and tell people that it is ok to meet with friends in groups under ten, but it should be outside. Then perhaps daycares and kindergartens reopen and people could start going into offices, perhaps with continuing substantial remote work to prevent things being too crowded. The testing is what would be really key though, because you would really want to be able to know that cases weren't going up again as you did these things.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 09, 2020, 06:49:03 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on April 09, 2020, 05:59:12 AM
Yesterday, CDC issued controversial guidance regarding essential workers who may have been exposed to the virus but do not have symptoms.  Examine the "printable flyer for workplaces:"

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/Essential-Critical-Workers_Dos-and-Donts.pdf

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/critical-workers/implementing-safety-practices.html

This guidance is inconsistent with prior emphases on tracing and 14 day quarantine for anyone exposed to a case.  There is a back story here and I'm wondering what the feds are up to.


I suspect it is just about numbers going up. They dropped quarantines for doctors, nurses and EMTs possibly exposed weeks ago, because it was obvious that if you did that you weren't going to have any medical workers.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ciao_yall on April 09, 2020, 07:57:44 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 09, 2020, 05:58:46 AM
Quote from: namazu on April 08, 2020, 07:49:12 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 08, 2020, 05:12:23 AM
I am working with a few others to set up a FB site for our county to attempt to collect and disseminate Covid 19 information.  Would you all PM me about how the information was disseminated in your areas?  Thank you,
My county publishes a map and table with case counts by zip code.  I've seen other county health departments with maps showing case counts by town.  I can PM you some examples, if you'd like.  Of course, if your county or state's health department doesn't already publish this info somewhere, you'd likely have to source it from news reports.

Mostly, we sourcing from local gossip, unfortunately.  The state provides county level numbers but that's it.

Here are two handy resources...

Real time tracker, can drill down: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

And spiffy charts showing local trends: https://weather.com/coronavirus/l/37.7795,-122.4195
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ciao_yall on April 09, 2020, 08:13:50 AM
Ooh, this is interesting for all you data viz nerds.

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1853362/?fbclid=IwAR0-dC2tGsO88TTec8otUhlRDXHhXC0pBAzGbHKHrnw5mJyxxVXdf7ijsgg
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on April 10, 2020, 05:30:14 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 09, 2020, 08:13:50 AM
Ooh, this is interesting for all you data viz nerds.

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1853362/?fbclid=IwAR0-dC2tGsO88TTec8otUhlRDXHhXC0pBAzGbHKHrnw5mJyxxVXdf7ijsgg

Got  a 403 error and  Forbidden
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 10, 2020, 08:38:24 AM
This report from CDC is also disturbing, though I don't have the medical background to claim expertise. It seems that covid-19 may be much more contagious than originally thought.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on April 11, 2020, 01:39:04 PM
Might someone explain what is meant by "peak"?  Is it number of cases?  Is it deaths? 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on April 11, 2020, 01:45:58 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 11, 2020, 01:39:04 PM
Might someone explain what is meant by "peak"?  Is it number of cases?  Is it deaths?

I assume that it means the highest number of newly infected people in one day or one week.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 11, 2020, 01:51:06 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 11, 2020, 01:39:04 PM
Might someone explain what is meant by "peak"?  Is it number of cases?  Is it deaths?

I believe it can be either, they are also sometimes using it to refer to things like numbers of people in intensive care, or numbers of people hospitalized.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on April 11, 2020, 01:55:51 PM
Yeah, the newspaper headlines from NY seem to mean new hospitalizations, though I can't be sure.

The best source of data was put up on this thread, or elsewhere on the fora https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/

My favorite is these: Ignore China, choose total cases, and by country, click to transform to logs, and look at all the curves flatten, though they're not perfectly flat yet [which would mean a relative growth rate of zero].
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ciao_yall on April 11, 2020, 03:10:56 PM
Quote from: Caracal on April 11, 2020, 01:51:06 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 11, 2020, 01:39:04 PM
Might someone explain what is meant by "peak"?  Is it number of cases?  Is it deaths?

I believe it can be either, they are also sometimes using it to refer to things like numbers of people in intensive care, or numbers of people hospitalized.

It is when the number of hospitalizations maxes out and begins to decline. Coupled with a lower rate of new infections.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on April 11, 2020, 05:14:16 PM
If people spend a week in the hospital, then the real "peak" for the health care system is at least one week after the peak in new cases. That is even if we're adding fewer new cases per day, for quite some time we'll still be adding more people than are leaving the hospital.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 12, 2020, 04:24:01 AM
Fair point, Pigou. The reports I'm seeing is that a fair proportion of those who are serious enough to be hospitalised take 2+ weeks to recover.

Do we need a separate thread for academics who have passed from Covid?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 12, 2020, 07:05:10 AM
Quote from: pigou on April 11, 2020, 05:14:16 PM
If people spend a week in the hospital, then the real "peak" for the health care system is at least one week after the peak in new cases. That is even if we're adding fewer new cases per day, for quite some time we'll still be adding more people than are leaving the hospital.

I think when they are talking about the idea that the peak might be right now in NY, they are talking about numbers of deaths, hospital admissions and  people in the ICU. The number of deaths have been almost the same for the last few days and the other numbers have dropped very slightly. Because testing is only getting a fraction of cases and access to tests isn't constant, these sorts of numbers essentially are telling you about spread of the virus in the past, but they suggest that the infection numbers were leveling off a week ago. If those ICU numbers keep going down, then eventually you'd expect the deaths to start going down too, but they'll be a lag.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on April 14, 2020, 08:34:16 AM
Stop-the-World-I-Want-To-Get-Off department:

A crew of Dutch high school students on a transatlantic tall ship voyage made it into Cuba after five weeks at sea.  Rather than fly home from Cuba as scheduled, they've turned around and headed back to sea to avoid the plague-ridden outer world.


https://wsbt.com/news/coronavirus/coronavirus-forces-dutch-students-into-long-voyage-home


Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on April 14, 2020, 08:43:02 AM
Quote from: apl68 on April 14, 2020, 08:34:16 AM
Stop-the-World-I-Want-To-Get-Off department:

A crew of Dutch high school students on a transatlantic tall ship voyage made it into Cuba after five weeks at sea.  Rather than fly home from Cuba as scheduled, they've turned around and headed back to sea to avoid the plague-ridden outer world.


https://wsbt.com/news/coronavirus/coronavirus-forces-dutch-students-into-long-voyage-home

It sounds more like they flew to the Caribbean, and they were to sail to Cuba, and instead sailed home. The article's not clear, but it doesn't sound like the orginal ocean crossing was on the ship.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on April 15, 2020, 09:50:54 AM
4/15 media briefing up on www.who.int.
Our president is making a point but is probably spurring actions beneficial by and to others. Disagree? Well, there is a WHO donation link on the web site (above).

I suggest (from):

Individuals -    $      5
Pvt. Sch.                 10
Sch. Sys.                 50
Colleges.               100
Universities.       1000
Foundations.      1000
Other Able Org.  1000

OK?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on April 16, 2020, 08:25:15 AM
We've had the first death in our county.  He went in to a hospital in the state capital for a pacemaker, and apparently caught the virus in the hospital.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 17, 2020, 01:55:34 AM
I'm hearing from a lot of friends and acquaintances who have it, or think they have (and who are suffering a lot more than the "usually mild" that was being put around).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ergative on April 17, 2020, 03:23:27 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on April 17, 2020, 01:55:34 AM
I'm hearing from a lot of friends and acquaintances who have it, or think they have (and who are suffering a lot more than the "usually mild" that was being put around).

As I understand it, 'usually mild' doesn't mean 'like a cold'. It means 'not enough to require hospitalization'. And that can be pretty bad.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on April 17, 2020, 03:44:31 AM
I've got a few friends who think they have had it and a bunch of friends of friends who have definitely had it. I've been struck by the variability of symptoms. Even some elderly people seem have relatively mild symptoms. The breathing problems are the hardest symptoms it seems even when it does not turn into pneumonia. The fever, headache, and overwhelming tiredness are also alarming. But some people only get a few of those symptoms, and less. Then there's the completely unresolved question of how many people with it are asymptomatic.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 17, 2020, 03:59:31 AM
I know of one person who said that they were suffering from nausea, vomiting, etc - no respiratory issues. They were not tested, yet are convinced they had Corona. I'm thinking they probably had norovirus.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 17, 2020, 06:31:05 AM
Quote from: ergative on April 17, 2020, 03:23:27 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on April 17, 2020, 01:55:34 AM
I'm hearing from a lot of friends and acquaintances who have it, or think they have (and who are suffering a lot more than the "usually mild" that was being put around).

As I understand it, 'usually mild' doesn't mean 'like a cold'. It means 'not enough to require hospitalization'. And that can be pretty bad.

From a mix of news reports and people I know who got it, it seems to vary a lot even within that spectrum. One of the people on the Diamond Princess said it basically felt like a mild flu and if he got it in a different context, he might have gone into work. I have a couple of family members who got it (they are doctors, so had easy access to testing) and it seemed pretty unpleasant but also of fairly short duration. Fever, Chills, Cough, but in a couple of days they were fine. Also know some other people who were quite sick for more than a week and only gradually got better. The digestive symptoms are less common, but they do happen. An acquaintance tested positive and have only a pretty slight cough but much more severe digestive problems.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 18, 2020, 03:14:50 AM
I understand symptoms can vary. I'm still skeptical of the self-diagnosed. (Especially all the "oh, I probably had it back in December" crowd: seems like a weird version of early-adopter syndrome).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 18, 2020, 06:30:29 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on April 18, 2020, 03:14:50 AM
I understand symptoms can vary. I'm still skeptical of the self-diagnosed. (Especially all the "oh, I probably had it back in December" crowd: seems like a weird version of early-adopter syndrome).

Oh, those people are driving me nuts. If you were sick in December or January in the US, you had the flu. Even in February, when Covid was circulating undetected in the US, it was undetected because pretty small numbers of people had it. (And we weren't testing) The guy who felt crummy in Utica in February almost certainly just had the flu.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on April 18, 2020, 09:57:59 AM
From another thread
Quote from: Caracal on April 18, 2020, 06:15:40 AM
Based on what we know, which isn't enough, it appears that unlike flu, kids probably aren't a big driver of COVID. They can get it, they can transmit it, but adults gathering together seems to be a much greater risk than kids doing the same.

I haven't seen evidence for this. I think of kids as carriers who are just as likely to transmit the virus as anyone else.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 18, 2020, 10:45:45 AM
Quote from: downer on April 18, 2020, 09:57:59 AM
From another thread
Quote from: Caracal on April 18, 2020, 06:15:40 AM
Based on what we know, which isn't enough, it appears that unlike flu, kids probably aren't a big driver of COVID. They can get it, they can transmit it, but adults gathering together seems to be a much greater risk than kids doing the same.

I haven't seen evidence for this. I think of kids as carriers who are just as likely to transmit the virus as anyone else.

Yup. The data that do exist suggest that SARS-CoV-2 is far more contagious than the previous SARS virus or MERS and that a large portion of those who get infected remain asymptomatic.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 18, 2020, 02:13:09 PM
Quote from: spork on April 18, 2020, 10:45:45 AM


I haven't seen evidence for this. I think of kids as carriers who are just as likely to transmit the virus as anyone else.

Yup. The data that do exist suggest that SARS-CoV-2 is far more contagious than the previous SARS virus or MERS and that a large portion of those who get infected remain asymptomatic.
[/quote]

I might have overstated this, but I think it is probably more accurate to say that the jury is still out. There haven't been known clusters of transmission centering around children. That could be because kids get milder symptoms so their role has been missed, but it could also be that they don't transmit the virus as easily. You would sort of think it might have been noticed if tons of parents and teachers at particular schools got sick, but to my knowledge there isn't much evidence of that.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: smallcleanrat on April 19, 2020, 08:45:55 PM
As someone who was struggling with bipolar depression before the mandate to shelter-in-place, I would really like to know how much of what I'm currently experiencing is less to do with mental illness and more to do with the unusual circumstances we are all living with.

As a result of pandemic-related stressors, including the loss of normal face-to-face interaction, has anyone else experienced any of the following?

1) Decreased success rate sticking to a regular hygiene routine (e.g. going days without showering or changing clothes)
2) Irregular eating and/or sleeping schedule
3) Missing time (i.e. realizing a significant chunk of time has passed that you cannot account for as you do not remember what you were doing)
4) A strong sense that your surroundings are not real, as though you were trapped in a dream or a video game
5) A feeling of being disconnected from your own body, such that you barely feel objects you are touching or actions you are performing and looking down at yourself or looking at your reflection gives a sense that you are looking at someone else
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Liquidambar on April 19, 2020, 09:34:56 PM
Smallcleanrat, I'm hearing 1-3 from a lot of people.  I haven't heard about 4-5 from others.

I'm surprised at how much I've been sticking with my eating schedule because of classes.  (I eat breakfast before Zoom classes start and lunch after Zoom classes end.)  If I didn't have classes, my meals would be more disordered.  I'm appalled at how much I've skipped brushing my teeth, though, since students can't tell through Zoom.  Washing my hair hasn't been so great either.  That's with no current mental health issues, just feeling overwhelmed by online teaching.

Actually, regarding your #4, I feel like I'm in a post-apocalyptic novel when I go out in public.  It does feel a bit unreal.  I don't feel like that at home.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: sylvie on April 19, 2020, 09:47:16 PM
Definitely 1-3 on a regular basis. And it's funny you should post this, because two days ago I felt unreal in the way you describe, sort of disassociated from my body in an unpleasant way, and also the feeling that I was trapped in some kind of purgatory (a feeling I haven't had in 28 years, since the last time I dropped acid at age 20). I felt completely normal the next morning and have felt okay since, but it was definitely a disturbing sense of unreality.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 20, 2020, 06:18:57 AM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on April 19, 2020, 08:45:55 PM
As someone who was struggling with bipolar depression before the mandate to shelter-in-place, I would really like to know how much of what I'm currently experiencing is less to do with mental illness and more to do with the unusual circumstances we are all living with.

As a result of pandemic-related stressors, including the loss of normal face-to-face interaction, has anyone else experienced any of the following?

1) Decreased success rate sticking to a regular hygiene routine (e.g. going days without showering or changing clothes)
2) Irregular eating and/or sleeping schedule
3) Missing time (i.e. realizing a significant chunk of time has passed that you cannot account for as you do not remember what you were doing)
4) A strong sense that your surroundings are not real, as though you were trapped in a dream or a video game
5) A feeling of being disconnected from your own body, such that you barely feel objects you are touching or actions you are performing and looking down at yourself or looking at your reflection gives a sense that you are looking at someone else

1. Yes, definitely. Maybe not like days on end but I definitely have gotten to the end of the day and realized I'm still wearing all the same clothes as the day before. In normal times I take a shower and change clothes before I go somewhere where I'm going to see people, even if it is just the coffee shop. Now I have to remember to do it without that trigger.
2. No, but I live with my partner and a toddler so that tends to regulate those things. (and disregulate others) It wouldn't be strange to have trouble regulating  when you aren't leaving the house.
3. Depends what you mean. I'm definitely having more trouble focusing and wasting more time, but I know what I've been doing.
4-5. Sound more like the issues you've discussed before. It wouldn't be particularly surprising if they are being exacerbated by the other stuff. I hope you're still able to see a therapist/psychologist remotely. It might be worth really trying to establish a more regular schedule and see if that helps some. Get up at roughly the same time, go to bed by certain times, go for a walk, come back, take a shower etc.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on April 20, 2020, 07:00:32 AM
Quote from: Liquidambar on April 19, 2020, 09:34:56 PM
Actually, regarding your #4, I feel like I'm in a post-apocalyptic novel when I go out in public.  It does feel a bit unreal.  I don't feel like that at home.

I second this. I was leaving my apartment building to get some coffee this morning and someone from DHL came with a bunch of packages. I ended up waiting and holding the door for him... which in normal days would be obvious/trivial. But he ended up being so appreciative and said people just aren't doing that right now, because of the virus. (But I bet they're happy to get the packages he's delivering.)

It strikes me that, collectively, we've flipped from one absurd behavior (going to beaches and bars as if nothing happened) to another. Social distancing is sensible and important, but not all forms of it impose the same cost or have the same benefits. Talking to someone wearing (surgical) masks isn't particularly risky, but probably has lots of mental health benefits. Holding the door for someone imposes virtually zero risk (none if you get behind the door as you hold it) and so much social benefit.

I don't think these all-or-nothing policies are necessary. As we see in Sweden, with no lock down, people are still practicing social distancing, just not as extremely. And we have data on this from the US, too: even states that didn't issue shelter-in-place orders saw a rapid drop of restaurant reservations. Anecdotes of some packed diner aside, the location data from smartphones also suggests people started staying at home before the orders came into place. They just continue to go to beaches and parks, where social distancing is actually pretty easy to do. A 6 foot distance between people who don't live together is easily maintained and someone walking past you (without yelling in your face) poses a very low risk of infection. If that were not true, we'd all be infected by now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on April 20, 2020, 08:18:43 AM
I haven't experienced any of the symptoms smallcleanrat lists.  I do sleep more now than I did, but that was a side effect of medication that I began taking shortly before the pandemic hit.  I've always been a creature of habit.  My routines tend to be hard to disrupt too drastically.  I'm also in a position to continue physically going in to work most days.  Saturdays and Sundays are the strangest days.  On Saturdays I no longer go in to work, except briefly to check on the building.  On Sundays I now go to my office to use my computer to attend a virtual church service, instead of actually going to church.

The stressers are still getting to me somewhat.  My productivity at work has gone down considerably.  It's harder for me to focus on tasks.  I don't spend a lot of time worrying about stuff--at least not more than usual.  But the general emergency and changes in society and at work are definitely proving a distraction.  As much as anything I feel a huge frustration at not being able to do my job of serving the public the way I feel I should be. 

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on April 20, 2020, 08:19:18 AM
Our community has been fortunate in some ways at this time.  We're a small town, fairly isolated, in a rural state where the state leadership has done a credible job of responding.  Our state has had some of the very lowest rates of infection in the nation, despite being right next door to a hot-spot state.  Our main employer is a toilet-paper factory, which is now working full-blast to satisfy accelerated demand.  We've had a single verified Covid-19 death in our county thus far.

But it's still a tough time.  I know multiple people who have had loved ones go to the hospital (for non-virus issues) in the state capital, without their being able to go there with them.  One friend and fellow church member of mine died there by himself just last week.  His funeral will be the second that our pastor has had to preach where only a handful of family will be able to be present.  Today my parents, who live across the state, are beginning the first of a series of two-hour round trips to take Mom to have radiation therapy treatments.  That won't be easy on them at their age.

The newly-deceased friend I just mentioned above was also our town's Mayor.  He had been under a great deal of stress trying to deal with the challenges to the community posed by the pandemic.  He also had chronic health problems, chronic issues with a member of the family, and was coming up on the anniversary of his beloved wife's death.  All the strain was just too much for him.  We can't hold a proper funeral for him, so today the city is holding a funeral procession.  Citizens will be able to pay their respects and maintain social distancing as the procession goes down the street.  It's the best we can do right now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mahagonny on April 20, 2020, 08:28:09 AM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on April 19, 2020, 08:45:55 PM
As someone who was struggling with bipolar depression before the mandate to shelter-in-place, I would really like to know how much of what I'm currently experiencing is less to do with mental illness and more to do with the unusual circumstances we are all living with.

As a result of pandemic-related stressors, including the loss of normal face-to-face interaction, has anyone else experienced any of the following?

1) Decreased success rate sticking to a regular hygiene routine (e.g. going days without showering or changing clothes)
2) Irregular eating and/or sleeping schedule
3) Missing time (i.e. realizing a significant chunk of time has passed that you cannot account for as you do not remember what you were doing)
4) A strong sense that your surroundings are not real, as though you were trapped in a dream or a video game
5) A feeling of being disconnected from your own body, such that you barely feel objects you are touching or actions you are performing and looking down at yourself or looking at your reflection gives a sense that you are looking at someone else

#4 and #5 are derealization and depersonalization disorder, and probably have to do with you how are using the forum as you currently are. (I'm glad you are keeping in touch and I know you've been asked to; I wouldn't dissuade you). But you are using the forum in order to make  your world seem more real to you. Perhaps you are experiencing this in response to a traumatic life event. I believe I mentioned before, I have personal history with derealization. I would take a wild guess and say the feelings of derealization are somewhat abated after reading the forum, temporarily.
Derealization is difficult to endure but passes.
I recommend keeping up with personal hygiene and dressing up for work on zoom (within reason). I always shave before going on and teaching. It makes me feel more grounded.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 20, 2020, 03:10:35 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/opinion/coronavirus-testing-pneumonia.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/opinion/coronavirus-testing-pneumonia.html)

So does anyone know what the most reliable/accurate pulse oximeters are for home use?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on April 20, 2020, 04:17:04 PM
Quote from: spork on April 20, 2020, 03:10:35 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/opinion/coronavirus-testing-pneumonia.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/opinion/coronavirus-testing-pneumonia.html)

So does anyone know what the most reliable/accurate pulse oximeters are for home use?
I checked a couple weeks ago and they were all sold out on Amazon, and very limited supply on eBay. I suspect it may be hard to get any at this point.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on April 20, 2020, 04:57:10 PM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on April 19, 2020, 08:45:55 PM
As someone who was struggling with bipolar depression before the mandate to shelter-in-place, I would really like to know how much of what I'm currently experiencing is less to do with mental illness and more to do with the unusual circumstances we are all living with.

As a result of pandemic-related stressors, including the loss of normal face-to-face interaction, has anyone else experienced any of the following?

1) Decreased success rate sticking to a regular hygiene routine (e.g. going days without showering or changing clothes)
2) Irregular eating and/or sleeping schedule
3) Missing time (i.e. realizing a significant chunk of time has passed that you cannot account for as you do not remember what you were doing)
4) A strong sense that your surroundings are not real, as though you were trapped in a dream or a video game
5) A feeling of being disconnected from your own body, such that you barely feel objects you are touching or actions you are performing and looking down at yourself or looking at your reflection gives a sense that you are looking at someone else

I was struggling with the first three. I now have a daily task chart, where I mark off personal routines as I do them. Tasks include shower, floss,  write meal plan, lay out clothing for next day, etc. I also set alarms on phone to remind myself of mealtimes and bedtime. I use my Amazon Echo to help myself stay aware of time, setting 30-minute reminders for myself like, "You started reading at 6:30. Time for a walk?"
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 20, 2020, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: pigou on April 20, 2020, 04:17:04 PM
Quote from: spork on April 20, 2020, 03:10:35 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/opinion/coronavirus-testing-pneumonia.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/opinion/coronavirus-testing-pneumonia.html)

So does anyone know what the most reliable/accurate pulse oximeters are for home use?
I checked a couple weeks ago and they were all sold out on Amazon, and very limited supply on eBay. I suspect it may be hard to get any at this point.

Amazon is listing dozens of models, some in stock now and others listed as next in stock on May 2 or 3.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: att_mtt on April 21, 2020, 10:20:57 AM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on April 19, 2020, 08:45:55 PM
As someone who was struggling with bipolar depression before the mandate to shelter-in-place, I would really like to know how much of what I'm currently experiencing is less to do with mental illness and more to do with the unusual circumstances we are all living with.

As a result of pandemic-related stressors, including the loss of normal face-to-face interaction, has anyone else experienced any of the following?

1) Decreased success rate sticking to a regular hygiene routine (e.g. going days without showering or changing clothes)
2) Irregular eating and/or sleeping schedule
3) Missing time (i.e. realizing a significant chunk of time has passed that you cannot account for as you do not remember what you were doing)
4) A strong sense that your surroundings are not real, as though you were trapped in a dream or a video game
5) A feeling of being disconnected from your own body, such that you barely feel objects you are touching or actions you are performing and looking down at yourself or looking at your reflection gives a sense that you are looking at someone else

I have heard from several people (which all normally don't have any particular mental health struggles) that they have experienced that and I think it is very common. I especially heard it from people that normally do not structure their day themselves. Everyone that has been working from home before seemed to be better. I found this article helpful: https://markmanson.net/coronavirus-mental-health-crisis
For me it's all about routine at the moment, even normally I detest routine. Now I get up at the same time every day, shower, eat, everything just to make sure I don't forget anything. However, productivity has massively dropped, which is also okay.
There are three articles on Karen Kelskeys blog, which I found useful: http://theprofessorisin.com/2020/04/02/adapting-to-disaster-episode-one-security-a-guest-post/
Maybe you already know these articles but I hope that you can find something useful and that you will feel a bit better soon.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: smallcleanrat on April 21, 2020, 12:04:48 PM
Quote from: att_mtt on April 21, 2020, 10:20:57 AM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on April 19, 2020, 08:45:55 PM
As someone who was struggling with bipolar depression before the mandate to shelter-in-place, I would really like to know how much of what I'm currently experiencing is less to do with mental illness and more to do with the unusual circumstances we are all living with.

As a result of pandemic-related stressors, including the loss of normal face-to-face interaction, has anyone else experienced any of the following?

1) Decreased success rate sticking to a regular hygiene routine (e.g. going days without showering or changing clothes)
2) Irregular eating and/or sleeping schedule
3) Missing time (i.e. realizing a significant chunk of time has passed that you cannot account for as you do not remember what you were doing)
4) A strong sense that your surroundings are not real, as though you were trapped in a dream or a video game
5) A feeling of being disconnected from your own body, such that you barely feel objects you are touching or actions you are performing and looking down at yourself or looking at your reflection gives a sense that you are looking at someone else

I have heard from several people (which all normally don't have any particular mental health struggles) that they have experienced that and I think it is very common. I especially heard it from people that normally do not structure their day themselves. Everyone that has been working from home before seemed to be better. I found this article helpful: https://markmanson.net/coronavirus-mental-health-crisis
For me it's all about routine at the moment, even normally I detest routine. Now I get up at the same time every day, shower, eat, everything just to make sure I don't forget anything. However, productivity has massively dropped, which is also okay.
There are three articles on Karen Kelskeys blog, which I found useful: http://theprofessorisin.com/2020/04/02/adapting-to-disaster-episode-one-security-a-guest-post/
Maybe you already know these articles but I hope that you can find something useful and that you will feel a bit better soon.

Good links, att_mtt. Thanks for those.

I know from experience I do much better with routine. I've been marking down what tends to throw me off my routine these days (other than the lack of accustomed daily markers like heading out the door to work) and more often than not it's either pain, nausea, or other issues related to chronic illness. Does anyone have tips for making a routine more adaptable for times when interruptions are frequent and difficult to avoid?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on April 21, 2020, 01:19:53 PM
FWIW:


Quote from: smallcleanrat on April 19, 2020, 08:45:55 PM

As a result of pandemic-related stressors, including the loss of normal face-to-face interaction, has anyone else experienced any of the following?

1) Decreased success rate sticking to a regular hygiene routine (e.g. going days without showering or changing clothes)
2) Irregular eating and/or sleeping schedule
3) Missing time (i.e. realizing a significant chunk of time has passed that you cannot account for as you do not remember what you were doing)

Yes, to varying extents. I live with my partner, however, so there's a kind of externalization of responsibility for (1) and (2) that we both find helpful. If we were each on our own, it would be a very different story.

Quote
4) A strong sense that your surroundings are not real, as though you were trapped in a dream or a video game
5) A feeling of being disconnected from your own body, such that you barely feel objects you are touching or actions you are performing and looking down at yourself or looking at your reflection gives a sense that you are looking at someone else

Nope.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on April 21, 2020, 01:42:58 PM
Has anyone received their stimulus payment from the feds yet?  What did you do/plan to do with it?  Ours was significantly smaller than we expected due to our income, but I suppose that just means we are lucky and it's a good problem to have.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on April 21, 2020, 02:15:05 PM
Got mine last week. Straight into my bank account. I didn't give a thought to it. I'm sure that I'll be paying it back at some point.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on April 21, 2020, 03:51:57 PM
I am fairly comfortable (still working from home etc.), so I donated a large fraction of it to two community organizations who help those who are not so fortunate.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on April 21, 2020, 04:36:19 PM
My single (evil , rich) income is above the cap, so no money for me. However, my fiance is single (and poor) but hasnt yet got her check. 
Will we get a break in next year's taxes?  While I make too much as a single, our combined income will be well below the cap.  Will I get a credit in next year's taxes when Im no longer single (and rich), but married and below the combined cap?

For the second half of the question, I m investing in retirement accounts, cutting back on other expenses as I isolate at home (much less gas going in the car, eating at home more).  So Im saving as much as I can as married life will be more expensive, and after reading the Furlough thread with the pay cuts at different places, Im trying to keep my expenses in check.

Even if my state reopens, I plan to stay home.  In fact, I fear that as the governors reopen their states, it will mean that my life is in even greater danger!  I will be even more likely to stay home and cut back on what little I venture out now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on April 21, 2020, 06:39:15 PM
Yep and went straight into my brokerage account. Good time to buy stocks.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on April 21, 2020, 08:22:22 PM
Quote from: pigou on April 21, 2020, 06:39:15 PM
Yep and went straight into my brokerage account. Good time to buy stocks.

Or oil futures.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on April 21, 2020, 08:26:15 PM
If I knew what stocks or oil were going to do in future, why would I tell anyone? :-)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on April 21, 2020, 09:52:10 PM
Yep. I received my check. Right now, it's sitting in the bank. I may use some of it to work on the house.

On another note, I became aware of a faculty member who is posting about protesting the 'lockdown' on FB. Anyone else see this? I think this person may plan on attending.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 22, 2020, 03:46:39 AM
Not on FB so I don't see this protest stuff. Are they demanding that colleges reopen or what?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on April 22, 2020, 07:48:19 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on April 22, 2020, 03:46:39 AM
Not on FB so I don't see this protest stuff. Are they demanding that colleges reopen or what?

This person subscribes to a lot of conspiracy theory ideas. Basically, our civil liberties are being violated by a shelter-in-place order. Disturbing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on April 22, 2020, 08:20:03 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on April 22, 2020, 07:48:19 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on April 22, 2020, 03:46:39 AM
Not on FB so I don't see this protest stuff. Are they demanding that colleges reopen or what?

This person subscribes to a lot of conspiracy theory ideas. Basically, our civil liberties are being violated by a shelter-in-place order. Disturbing.

Anne Frank spent 2 years in an attic.  Americans can't manage a month. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 22, 2020, 08:49:14 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on April 22, 2020, 08:20:03 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on April 22, 2020, 07:48:19 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on April 22, 2020, 03:46:39 AM
Not on FB so I don't see this protest stuff. Are they demanding that colleges reopen or what?

This person subscribes to a lot of conspiracy theory ideas. Basically, our civil liberties are being violated by a shelter-in-place order. Disturbing.

Anne Frank spent 2 years in an attic.  Americans can't manage a month.

I really don't think there's broad based support for this stuff. The polls have all showed pretty broad support for restrictions. These ideas are being promoted in coordinated well funded efforts by extremist groups. It also seems like most of the participants at these rallies and people spouting rhetoric online are the usual suspects. Militia groups, Racial extremists, Anti-Vaxxers, all the usual suspects. Of course, the idea is to take these fringe ideas and make them mainstream. That's what I worry about.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Thursday's_Child on April 22, 2020, 09:01:46 AM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on April 19, 2020, 08:45:55 PM
<snip>
As a result of pandemic-related stressors, including the loss of normal face-to-face interaction, has anyone else experienced any of the following?

1) Decreased success rate sticking to a regular hygiene routine (e.g. going days without showering or changing clothes)
2) Irregular eating and/or sleeping schedule
3) Missing time (i.e. realizing a significant chunk of time has passed that you cannot account for as you do not remember what you were doing)
4) A strong sense that your surroundings are not real, as though you were trapped in a dream or a video game
5) A feeling of being disconnected from your own body, such that you barely feel objects you are touching or actions you are performing and looking down at yourself or looking at your reflection gives a sense that you are looking at someone else

Yes to 1 & 2, No to the others.

In addition, a general malaise which, now that I think about it, feels a lot like post-9/11.  There's the same sense of futility and doom that, even though I know humans have weathered much worse than this, still saps my focus and energy.  I'm fighting back (with varying success) by lowering expectations, being kind and helpful, restricting my news-watching habit, and trying to take care of myself - especially in the areas of nutritious food, adequate sleep, staying physically active, and doing at least a few pleasant things every day.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 24, 2020, 12:31:37 PM
My (completely unscientific) sense of academics is they are either a flurry of productivity, and journal submissions, or complete paralysis.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 29, 2020, 12:41:20 AM
There's apparently a gender divide going on too - women's submissions to academic journals in several fields have dropped off.

https://www.thelily.com/women-academics-seem-to-be-submitting-fewer-papers-during-coronavirus-never-seen-anything-like-it-says-one-editor/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 29, 2020, 02:08:14 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on April 29, 2020, 12:41:20 AM
There's apparently a gender divide going on too - women's submissions to academic journals in several fields have dropped off.

https://www.thelily.com/women-academics-seem-to-be-submitting-fewer-papers-during-coronavirus-never-seen-anything-like-it-says-one-editor/

They are probably doing most of the childcare/homeschooling -- Daddy has to attend his important Zoom meetings.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 29, 2020, 02:23:18 AM
Well, quite. It's probably been observed on these boards before, that there is a phenomenon of academic men taking their "paternity" leave as a bonus research leave.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on April 30, 2020, 03:53:06 AM
Yep. Plus they're more likely to go above and beyond in their transition to online learning and in providing pastoral care to their students.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on April 30, 2020, 03:57:02 AM
Quote from: science.expat on April 30, 2020, 03:53:06 AM
Plus they're more likely to go above and beyond in their transition to online learning

This x100. I'm seeing female colleagues recrafting entire syllabi - male colleagues just saying "whatever".
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: waterboy on April 30, 2020, 06:58:28 AM
To be honest, I didn't rejigger my syllabus much because of the uncertainty of where we're going. I'm waiting until we decide what the fall looks like before I make any needed changes to how my courses will go.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on April 30, 2020, 10:21:15 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on April 30, 2020, 03:57:02 AM
Quote from: science.expat on April 30, 2020, 03:53:06 AM
Plus they're more likely to go above and beyond in their transition to online learning

This x100. I'm seeing female colleagues recrafting entire syllabi - male colleagues just saying "whatever".

Great if you can/want to.  In my college, making major changes like that requires review at multiple levels.  Given the 1 week we had to get everything online, the fact that something actually IS online is a win.  If we are still online come fall, I have the summer to make such changes as are necessary and gain approvals. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on April 30, 2020, 10:30:39 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on April 30, 2020, 10:21:15 AM
In my college, making major changes like that requires review at multiple levels.

Here, too. The admin very nearly forgot, however, and it took some convincing to get them to implement mass-approval of emergency changes, rather than going through each course one by one, dragging the instructor before the Senate, etc.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on April 30, 2020, 11:16:57 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 30, 2020, 10:30:39 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on April 30, 2020, 10:21:15 AM
In my college, making major changes like that requires review at multiple levels.

Here, too. The admin very nearly forgot, however, and it took some convincing to get them to implement mass-approval of emergency changes, rather than going through each course one by one, dragging the instructor before the Senate, etc.

Wow! Here they put in a rapid local level approval process.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on May 01, 2020, 12:41:52 PM
Apparently Ohio University laying off faculty due to the virus....
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on May 01, 2020, 12:45:50 PM
Quote from: science.expat on April 30, 2020, 11:16:57 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 30, 2020, 10:30:39 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on April 30, 2020, 10:21:15 AM
In my college, making major changes like that requires review at multiple levels.

Here, too. The admin very nearly forgot, however, and it took some convincing to get them to implement mass-approval of emergency changes, rather than going through each course one by one, dragging the instructor before the Senate, etc.

Wow! Here they put in a rapid local level approval process.

I've certainly never claimed that we were a model of smooth-functioning! =p
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on May 02, 2020, 09:48:53 AM
minor prediction...
yesterday was May Day.  I saw on the news that China had relaxed flight restrictions and that flight booking for the May Day Weekend spiked.  (Sounds like the January issues a bit, doesnt it?)  So to the extent that you can believe numbers from China watch to see who they blame or IF they announce any CV19 spikes in 2 weeks or so. 

If none are announced does that mean that there are none?
If some are announced, will anyone here listen and slow the reopening frenzy? 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Ruralguy on May 02, 2020, 10:06:42 AM
No.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 02, 2020, 10:19:13 AM
Quote from: clean on May 02, 2020, 09:48:53 AM
minor prediction...
yesterday was May Day.  I saw on the news that China had relaxed flight restrictions and that flight booking for the May Day Weekend spiked.  (Sounds like the January issues a bit, doesnt it?)  So to the extent that you can believe numbers from China watch to see who they blame or IF they announce any CV19 spikes in 2 weeks or so. 

If none are announced does that mean that there are none?
If some are announced, will anyone here listen and slow the reopening frenzy?

Well they've been ramping up air travel all month and there hasn't been a huge resurgence in cases. I can't really see how the situation in China is remotely comparable to the US. The number of new cases is way, way down. I find it weird when people say you can't trust the numbers in China. Our numbers aren't accurate either. It is pretty clear that there's very little transmission there.

Of course they are relaxing restrictions. If the US was averaging under 20 confirmed cases a day, most imported, we'd be relaxing restrictions too.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on May 02, 2020, 11:10:36 AM
Masks are mandated in my state.  Yet lots of people aren't wearing masks while walking in areas with constant or frequent foot traffic.  Arrogant and rude.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on May 02, 2020, 11:50:16 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on May 02, 2020, 11:10:36 AM
Masks are mandated in my state.  Yet lots of people aren't wearing masks while walking in areas with constant or frequent foot traffic.  Arrogant and rude.

I'm curious about the mask mandates. Are there specified mask vendors? What is one supposed to do if there are none available? Is a bandana considered sufficient?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: arcturus on May 02, 2020, 12:03:16 PM
You can make your own mask: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html . I wore my "bandana face covering (no sew method)" to the grocery store this morning. My state does not have a mandatory mask regulation in place, but most people at the store had a mask of some type or another.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on May 02, 2020, 05:49:31 PM
I have a mask, but the elastic toggles are too short for my giant face so it pulls uncomfortably at my ears (and eventually comes off). I'm currently (as I type) attempting to create toggle extensions with string, but I suspect it's hopeless and I'll have to do some sewing. If I can source longer toggle material.

Update: snot bad, actually.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Penna on May 04, 2020, 06:22:41 AM
If anyone is looking to buy mask holder extensions, I found a place that sells them for $3 each:

https://www.keffalasdesigns.com/collections/social-distancing/products/elastic-mask-clip-extender

For those of us who don't have a sewing machine or any hand-sewing skills, the same site also sells 3-layer cloth masks (outer layers of cotton, with a flannel inner layer) for $5 each.  The seem able to keep up with their orders pretty well, too.  I have placed three separate orders from them in the last month, and each order has arrived in less than 2 weeks from the time of placing the order.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on May 04, 2020, 06:54:21 AM
Given the number of tests now flooding the market, without much information about specificity, indicators of immunity, etc., does it make any sense at all for me to get tested? Although technically I am in a high-risk population, I don't work in health care and I haven't had any symptoms suggesting an infection other than a dry cough (which disappeared over a week ago). I'm thinking that even if I tested positive for prior Covid-19 infection it wouldn't make any difference in how I'm living my life.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 04, 2020, 07:17:02 AM
Quote from: spork on May 04, 2020, 06:54:21 AM
Given the number of tests now flooding the market, without much information about specificity, indicators of immunity, etc., does it make any sense at all for me to get tested? Although technically I am in a high-risk population, I don't work in health care and I haven't had any symptoms suggesting an infection other than a dry cough (which disappeared over a week ago). I'm thinking that even if I tested positive for prior Covid-19 infection it wouldn't make any difference in how I'm living my life.

Not sure, I understand. There's no reason to get tested unless you have symptoms and you probably wouldn't be given a test anyway. The antibody tests are a different thing. At the moment, they are just being used to try to figure out how many people have been infected. It isn't something you could request or get in most circumstances.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on May 04, 2020, 09:07:13 AM
I guess you don't live in Chico (https://krcrtv.com/news/local/chico-clinic-offers-drive-through-antibody-testing-for-covid-19). Or Jacksonville (https://www.news4jax.com/health/2020/05/04/covid-19-antibody-tests-now-available-in-jacksonville/). Or Ames (https://www.kcci.com/article/serology-testing-determines-if-you-can-build-immunity-to-covid-19-but-theres-a-catch/32244399). Or any of the multitudes of other locations in the USA where antibody testing is available.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: sprout on May 04, 2020, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: spork on May 04, 2020, 09:07:13 AM
I guess you don't live in Chico (https://krcrtv.com/news/local/chico-clinic-offers-drive-through-antibody-testing-for-covid-19). Or Jacksonville (https://www.news4jax.com/health/2020/05/04/covid-19-antibody-tests-now-available-in-jacksonville/). Or Ames (https://www.kcci.com/article/serology-testing-determines-if-you-can-build-immunity-to-covid-19-but-theres-a-catch/32244399). Or any of the multitudes of other locations in the USA where antibody testing is available.

Or you could join the NIH study:  NIH begins study to quantify undetected cases of coronavirus infection (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-begins-study-quantify-undetected-cases-coronavirus-infection)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on May 04, 2020, 09:28:33 AM
I have read that all the available antibody tests are very faulty, and give both false positive and false negatives. And since we don't know what kind of immunity is conferred by having had the virus, it's not really clear how infection-proof a recovered person is. It sounds as if there's a possibility that people who had a low-level infection are not very immune. I am wondering if a bout of something I had was a low-level Covid infection, but I'm going to wait until they have more reliable antibody tests before attempting to get tested.

(Incidentally I did volunteer for that NIH study, but never heard anything back.)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on May 04, 2020, 09:33:50 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on May 04, 2020, 09:28:33 AM
I have read that all the available antibody tests are very faulty, and give both false positive and false negatives.

This is what I'm concerned about. I was seeing some where the margin of error was pretty close to the % they were classing as having had the disease.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on May 04, 2020, 09:36:19 AM
Which antibody test would you take?  My understanding of the news about them is that there are many of them, but they are not well tested themselves and some that have been tested have a very high error rate. 

A man with one watch knows what time it is, but a man with 2 is never sure.  So do you really want to risk that you get a false positive and then end up getting it and risking your life? 

Im not going to take any of the tests until I think that I have been exposed. If the CDC specifies a list of verified tests for the antibodies, only then will I consider taking the test and only if proving that I did or did not have the antibodies.  (Like IF my employer wants me to risk my life on some half thought out plan whose primary goal is to 'protect the students', but exposes faculty to 100% of them*).

* the discussion my dean had with us last week was that one of the plans to protect students was a 'hybrid plan' where we would meet 1/2 the class on say Monday, the other half on Wednesday, and the be online for the other half of the material.  The result being that faculty get the worst of both worlds.  We are online for all of the joys that entails, and we spend just as much time in the classroom where over the week we are exposed to 100% of the students!   All in a measure to protect the population that is least likely to have adverse reaction, even though I, like many faculty, have 2 or more additional risk factors!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 04, 2020, 09:50:37 AM
Quote from: clean on May 04, 2020, 09:36:19 AM
* the discussion my dean had with us last week was that one of the plans to protect students was a 'hybrid plan' where we would meet 1/2 the class on say Monday, the other half on Wednesday, and the be online for the other half of the material.  The result being that faculty get the worst of both worlds.  We are online for all of the joys that entails, and we spend just as much time in the classroom where over the week we are exposed to 100% of the students!   All in a measure to protect the population that is least likely to have adverse reaction, even though I, like many faculty, have 2 or more additional risk factors!

And of course the ridiculous logical hole in the approach is that the people who are exposed to all of the students are then the vector for passing the virus between the two groups.

The only way to prevent people from spreading it is to protect them from getting it in the first place.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on May 04, 2020, 10:00:41 AM
Quote from: clean on May 04, 2020, 09:36:19 AM
* the discussion my dean had with us last week was that one of the plans to protect students was a 'hybrid plan' where we would meet 1/2 the class on say Monday, the other half on Wednesday, and the be online for the other half of the material.

Sounds like a logistical nightmare and an extra heavy burden pedagogically. Do faculty have any say?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on May 04, 2020, 10:25:59 AM
Quote from: spork on May 04, 2020, 06:54:21 AM
Given the number of tests now flooding the market, without much information about specificity, indicators of immunity, etc., does it make any sense at all for me to get tested? Although technically I am in a high-risk population, I don't work in health care and I haven't had any symptoms suggesting an infection other than a dry cough (which disappeared over a week ago). I'm thinking that even if I tested positive for prior Covid-19 infection it wouldn't make any difference in how I'm living my life.

From what you say, it does not appear you meet the approved criteria for testing.  But if you were tested, and it came back negative, it at least provides some data for better estimates of what the prevalence of COVID is.  In my state, about 15% of people tested (not sure the method) are given a positive result - and my state has not exactly been stellar in rolling out widespread testing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on May 04, 2020, 10:30:51 AM
Quote
Sounds like a logistical nightmare and an extra heavy burden pedagogically. Do faculty have any say?

Faculty have any say?  Sure faculty are Free To Agree With the administration!  (otherwise, no, at least not once the decision is made and I dont think that faculty will have any voice in the Regent level decision making). 

The governor has moved to open the state.  The regents will do what it takes to maximize revenue, especially when facing the huge budget shortfall that the shutdown caused to sales tax revenues, and any drop in tuition revenue will add additional pain.  Once the regents speak the admincritters will salute smartly and steam roll any faculty dissent.  At least that is my expectation.

Personally, I have appointments with my primary care physician in June and also my specialist in June.  I will begin collecting letters that indicate that I am in the higher risk group and should be restricting my exposure to the virus until a shot is developed.  I will then process the appropriate ADA paperwork.

Ironically, the governor's statements have noted that though he is moving to reopen the state, those with higher risks should continue to stay home.  However, I dont think that this part of the governor's advice will keep the administration from taking actions to require all faculty to return to face to face classes.

However, no official plan has been announced just yet.  Whatever the Big State Schools do, we will likely follow suit.  In my deeply Republican state, I suspect that the Back To Work call will overwhelm any measure to protect faculty, unless parents are unwilling to pay tuition to send their youngins back into harms way (to a greater extent than their demand for lower tuition for online only classes).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 04, 2020, 11:56:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 04, 2020, 09:50:37 AM
Quote from: clean on May 04, 2020, 09:36:19 AM
* the discussion my dean had with us last week was that one of the plans to protect students was a 'hybrid plan' where we would meet 1/2 the class on say Monday, the other half on Wednesday, and the be online for the other half of the material.  The result being that faculty get the worst of both worlds.  We are online for all of the joys that entails, and we spend just as much time in the classroom where over the week we are exposed to 100% of the students!   All in a measure to protect the population that is least likely to have adverse reaction, even though I, like many faculty, have 2 or more additional risk factors!

And of course the ridiculous logical hole in the approach is that the people who are exposed to all of the students are then the vector for passing the virus between the two groups.

The only way to prevent people from spreading it is to protect them from getting it in the first place.

Without commenting on whether this is a good idea or not,  the logic here is off. The risk of being infected almost certainly goes up the more time you spend around an infected person. If a student had the virus and you saw them only one time a week, all other things being equal, you'd be less likely to get it than if you spent two days a week with them.

There are other factors at play too. A student who came once a week, but got sick would be more likely to not be in class while they were pre-symptomatic. It also would allow for more space in the room which would let everyone sit further away. Again, not saying its a good idea, but it isn't crazy.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on May 04, 2020, 12:39:17 PM
QuoteThere are other factors at play too. A student who came once a week, but got sick would be more likely to not be in class while they were pre-symptomatic. It also would allow for more space in the room which would let everyone sit further away. Again, not saying its a good idea, but it isn't crazy.

Crazy or not.  Faculty are still exposed to 100% of the class.  Worse, faculty will spend exactly the same amount of time as in pre CV19 days, but then would have to spend a not insignificant amount of time with online duties.  All while still exposing themselves to this illness. 
Alternatively, IF one were cleared to teach 100% in face to face classes, it is a win for all. IF one is unable to teach face to face, but only online, then the faculty has zero exposure to the students, and only has to deal with the online class, and not both.

Currently, I rarely leave the house. For the most part, items are delivered to the house, or with minimal contact take out.  Being forced to return to campus in this environment is not conducive to my continued mediocre health!

Recent articles indicated that the daily death rate is expected to double by June! 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 04, 2020, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 04, 2020, 11:56:02 AM
Without commenting on whether this is a good idea or not,  the logic here is off. The risk of being infected almost certainly goes up the more time you spend around an infected person. If a student had the virus and you saw them only one time a week, all other things being equal, you'd be less likely to get it than if you spent two days a week with them.

There are other factors at play too. A student who came once a week, but got sick would be more likely to not be in class while they were pre-symptomatic. It also would allow for more space in the room which would let everyone sit further away. Again, not saying its a good idea, but it isn't crazy.

If you could transport the "Monday" group to a particular residence, with a particular dining hall, with the use of a particular library, AND you could transport the "Wednesday" group to a different residence, with a different dining hall, with the use of a different library, then it might make sense, assuming you could have cleaning and disinfecting of all classrooms at the end of every day.

The point is that there are just too many ways the two groups are going to mingle and/or come into contact with the same surfaces, etc. to make having only half as many in a class make anything more than a marginal difference. (The instructor is just one example of a common point of potential contact, and admittedly not the most likely.) So I'd argue that it is pretty crazy, since it ignores the vast amount of contact that will happen outside the classroom that will be totally unregulated.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on May 04, 2020, 01:21:13 PM
Will the halves not intermix?  Will there be a university policy mandating the the 1/2 of one class (say A-M in the alphabet) not mix with someone else's formula (Males on Monday, Females on Wednesday... ignoring the 'identifies alternative to birth certificate' issues). 
What about those that are married or whose names are different from the university roster like hyphenated names?

And will there be an ID check at the door?
Will there be Odd Even license plate checks to park? 

The bottom line is that IF faculty are then required to enforce these rules, then that takes up even more time away from teaching, research and service!

I suppose that my time is unlimited (if asking the provost's office!) 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 04, 2020, 02:00:33 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 04, 2020, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 04, 2020, 11:56:02 AM
Without commenting on whether this is a good idea or not,  the logic here is off. The risk of being infected almost certainly goes up the more time you spend around an infected person. If a student had the virus and you saw them only one time a week, all other things being equal, you'd be less likely to get it than if you spent two days a week with them.

There are other factors at play too. A student who came once a week, but got sick would be more likely to not be in class while they were pre-symptomatic. It also would allow for more space in the room which would let everyone sit further away. Again, not saying its a good idea, but it isn't crazy.

If you could transport the "Monday" group to a particular residence, with a particular dining hall, with the use of a particular library, AND you could transport the "Wednesday" group to a different residence, with a different dining hall, with the use of a different library, then it might make sense, assuming you could have cleaning and disinfecting of all classrooms at the end of every day.

The point is that there are just too many ways the two groups are going to mingle and/or come into contact with the same surfaces, etc. to make having only half as many in a class make anything more than a marginal difference. (The instructor is just one example of a common point of potential contact, and admittedly not the most likely.) So I'd argue that it is pretty crazy, since it ignores the vast amount of contact that will happen outside the classroom that will be totally unregulated.

Look, seems like a logistical nightmare for teaching, but you're missing the point. The idea is not to keep one group of students away from another group of students, but to make classrooms less crowded and to limit the number of close contacts students would have. If you have fewer students in all your classes, you'll come into close contact with fewer people. That's the main way C-19 is spread. If this was the plan in isolation it would be inadequate, but it isn't absurd in the context of a university wide plan that would try to keep people further apart in dining halls, residences, the library etc.

Really, I suspect the main idea of this plan would just be to keep classrooms from being so crowded. I'd tend to think that the better way to do that would be to have a significant number of classes (perhaps especially big ones) fully online, which would allow smaller classes to use bigger rooms, allowing for a lot of spacing. That would also have the benefit of allowing faculty and students who are at greater risk, or live with someone at greater risk, to stay online.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 04, 2020, 02:29:37 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 04, 2020, 02:00:33 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 04, 2020, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 04, 2020, 11:56:02 AM
Without commenting on whether this is a good idea or not,  the logic here is off. The risk of being infected almost certainly goes up the more time you spend around an infected person. If a student had the virus and you saw them only one time a week, all other things being equal, you'd be less likely to get it than if you spent two days a week with them.

There are other factors at play too. A student who came once a week, but got sick would be more likely to not be in class while they were pre-symptomatic. It also would allow for more space in the room which would let everyone sit further away. Again, not saying its a good idea, but it isn't crazy.

If you could transport the "Monday" group to a particular residence, with a particular dining hall, with the use of a particular library, AND you could transport the "Wednesday" group to a different residence, with a different dining hall, with the use of a different library, then it might make sense, assuming you could have cleaning and disinfecting of all classrooms at the end of every day.

The point is that there are just too many ways the two groups are going to mingle and/or come into contact with the same surfaces, etc. to make having only half as many in a class make anything more than a marginal difference. (The instructor is just one example of a common point of potential contact, and admittedly not the most likely.) So I'd argue that it is pretty crazy, since it ignores the vast amount of contact that will happen outside the classroom that will be totally unregulated.

Look, seems like a logistical nightmare for teaching, but you're missing the point. The idea is not to keep one group of students away from another group of students, but to make classrooms less crowded and to limit the number of close contacts students would have. If you have fewer students in all your classes, you'll come into close contact with fewer people. That's the main way C-19 is spread. If this was the plan in isolation it would be inadequate, but it isn't absurd in the context of a university wide plan that would try to keep people further apart in dining halls, residences, the library etc.


But this is the part of the plan that is absurd. How can the university keep them apart in dining halls, residences, and the library? Everyone is going to want to eat around mealtime. Are 50% of students automatically going to eat an hour (or whatever) earlier  or later? Are roommates going to stagger their entering and leaving their rooms to not come into close contact? Are students on a hall going to stagger their times leaving residence in the morning to avoid being crowded together? Are students going to voluntarily look for empty areas in the library to work, even when that's nowhere near the resources they would use for their work?

Crowding happens automatically because lots of people want/need the same resources at the same time. Splitting class atendance maybe will reduce 25% of the close interaction between students. Without Herculean efforts, the other 75% that happens will negate any potential value from that. (And the Herculean efforts will possibly tick people off more than staying home  would have.)

And this is without even considering the greatest close interaction that comes through social gatherings. If anyone believes that can be prevented I have a bridge or two to sell.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on May 04, 2020, 02:30:24 PM
QuoteThe idea is not to keep one group of students away from another group of students, but to make classrooms less crowded and to limit the number of close contacts students would have. If you have fewer students in all your classes, you'll come into close contact with fewer people. That's the main way C-19 is spread.

You are correct.  You should be demoted to administration!
The goal was stated to make the classrooms less crowded and IF the dean had stopped there, or said what you said, great, but he foolishly said 'to protect the students' health'.  (implying FiretrUCK the faculty!)  Once again, he said too much of the wrong thing and pissed off those whose health were clearly not mentioned as worthy of protecting. 

Anyway, the proposal may indeed reduce classroom crowding, but it certainly comes at the cost of faculty time, effort and energy, and at a non-consequential risk to health!

I dont know IF there is a good solution short of a vaccine!  Until we have an answer, I will do what I need to secure my health. 
Remember:
IF  YOU are not looking out for YOUR health, then NO ONE IS!!  (Certainly not the university that employees you!)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on May 04, 2020, 02:41:27 PM
Marshwiggle, it's not as if no one in the planning process has thought of these concerns. Yes, the idea is that mealtimes would be staggered — much as on a train, or even in restaurants, you have the 5:00 seating, the 6:00 seating, the 7:00 seating, etc. Library tables would be moved to facilitate spacing, and areas would be patrolled.  The universities are doing a lot to plan it all out. The part that I am most skeptical about is whether students will social-distance themselves in the voluntary ways, e.g. not having parties, not gathering in people's rooms. I think the likelihood that they'll refrain from that is small. But we'll see.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on May 04, 2020, 04:07:10 PM
I suspect much of the decision will come down to whether the federal government will give employers (and colleges) protection against COVID lawsuits. If faculty and students can sue the university if they get infected on campus, it doesn't matter what kind of physical distancing measures are possible. No way any organization would take that kind of risk to re-open.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 04, 2020, 04:54:23 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on May 04, 2020, 02:41:27 PM
The part that I am most skeptical about is whether students will social-distance themselves in the voluntary ways, e.g. not having parties, not gathering in people's rooms. I think the likelihood that they'll refrain from that is small. But we'll see.

To be fair to the students, some of that will be tough. Large parties are one thing, but what else does one do in a college dorm except hang out in people's rooms? If you set up rules that nobody is allowed to visit anyone else's room, that would make for a pretty miserable experience. It isn't like there are a lot of other places to hang out in a dorm. I guess there's the outside but that only works when its not really hot or really cold.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on May 04, 2020, 07:28:34 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 04, 2020, 04:54:23 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on May 04, 2020, 02:41:27 PM
The part that I am most skeptical about is whether students will social-distance themselves in the voluntary ways, e.g. not having parties, not gathering in people's rooms. I think the likelihood that they'll refrain from that is small. But we'll see.

To be fair to the students, some of that will be tough. Large parties are one thing, but what else does one do in a college dorm except hang out in people's rooms? If you set up rules that nobody is allowed to visit anyone else's room, that would make for a pretty miserable experience. It isn't like there are a lot of other places to hang out in a dorm. I guess there's the outside but that only works when its not really hot or really cold.

I have precisely zero faith that I can count on n-thousand students staying 6 feet apart, wiping down surfaces, checking their temperatures if they feel a bit off, or anything else that decreases either their risk or mine.  My strong guess is that we will be face to face come fall, if for no other reason than the alternative is financial suicide.  So if I gotta actually look at the little buggers, I'll be wearing a  mask, staying ≥ 6 feet away from all other carbon based life forms during class periods, and working from home at all other times. From there I'll be happy to meet with any and everybody via Skype Zoom Teams Blackboard Ultra Collaborate WhatsApp Google Hangout or any of a dozen other platforms.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 05, 2020, 05:53:32 AM
Quote from: pigou on May 04, 2020, 04:07:10 PM
I suspect much of the decision will come down to whether the federal government will give employers (and colleges) protection against COVID lawsuits. If faculty and students can sue the university if they get infected on campus, it doesn't matter what kind of physical distancing measures are possible. No way any organization would take that kind of risk to re-open.

A couple of questions:

*If a student dies, how many parents will pull their kids immediately? What will that do to the insitution's reputation? What kind of lawsuits will ensue?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on May 05, 2020, 06:16:37 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 05, 2020, 05:53:32 AM

*If a student dies, how many parents will pull their kids immediately? What will that do to the insitution's reputation? What kind of lawsuits will ensue?


I've been aware of undergrads dying of meningitis every now and again, going back to when I was a student. The effect on the institution is nil.
They get a nice bench on the quad with their name on it.
As with coronavirus, there's no way to sue the university, since there's no way of proving the student caught it there (as opposed to, on the bus, in a grocery store, etc).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on May 05, 2020, 06:39:22 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 05, 2020, 06:16:37 AM
I've been aware of undergrads dying of meningitis every now and again, going back to when I was a student. The effect on the institution is nil.
They get a nice bench on the quad with their name on it.

Ouch.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 05, 2020, 06:52:23 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 05, 2020, 05:53:32 AM
Quote from: pigou on May 04, 2020, 04:07:10 PM
I suspect much of the decision will come down to whether the federal government will give employers (and colleges) protection against COVID lawsuits. If faculty and students can sue the university if they get infected on campus, it doesn't matter what kind of physical distancing measures are possible. No way any organization would take that kind of risk to re-open.

A couple of questions:

  • What percentage of places that re-open, no matter what the restrictions, will avoid a "serious" outbreak, which I'll define as one where someone winds up in an ICU?
  • If a place re-opens, and someone actually dies of covid, especially a *student, how is the financial fallout from that likely to compare to staying virtual instead?

*If a student dies, how many parents will pull their kids immediately? What will that do to the insitution's reputation? What kind of lawsuits will ensue?

They do also happen to be the demographic, with the exception of younger kids, which has the lowest rate of mortality by far. For some perspective, my state has had 400 deaths. Exactly zero of them are in people under 25. The CDC counts 42 Covid deaths among people 15-24 in the whole country. (The data lags, by a few weeks, but still)

It will be important to make sure the small number of students with conditions that put them at greater risk have options that will keep them safe, but for most college students, the risk of dying of Covid is really low.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 05, 2020, 07:21:50 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 05, 2020, 06:16:37 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 05, 2020, 05:53:32 AM

*If a student dies, how many parents will pull their kids immediately? What will that do to the insitution's reputation? What kind of lawsuits will ensue?


I've been aware of undergrads dying of meningitis every now and again, going back to when I was a student. The effect on the institution is nil.
They get a nice bench on the quad with their name on it.
As with coronavirus, there's no way to sue the university, since there's no way of proving the student caught it there (as opposed to, on the bus, in a grocery store, etc).

The difference here is that things were originally shut down to protect people, and now a decision has been made to open up on the assumption that it was safe to do so. Meningitis and flesh-eating disease and things like that are  rare but ever-present dangers. Covid is a specific danger now, and presumably in several months will have a vaccine which will then put it in the same category of rare. Until then, deaths will always be evaluated against the precautions put in place (or not) to prevent them.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on May 05, 2020, 07:37:08 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 05, 2020, 07:21:50 AM
Until then, deaths will always be evaluated against the precautions put in place (or not) to prevent them.

Yes, and from a legal standpoint there is no way a school would be liable for a student catching the disease.
Unless they were somehow forced into a lab and the Dean shoved a sample of the virus up their nose.

Meanwhile, the whole "kids can't get sick, let's reopen schools" might not be looking so good. The NYT is reporting 15 hospitalised children (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/nyregion/children-Kawasaki-syndrome-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on May 05, 2020, 07:50:41 AM
Campus libraries will face challenges maintaining social distancing while still providing services.  For example, library computers tend to be in clusters.  At our (public) library we have 18 public access computers.  In making our plans to reopen we have found that we can only accommodate patrons at six of these while maintaining social distancing.  Campus libraries will probably find a similar proportion of their public access computers unserviceable while social distancing rules remain in effect.

Then there's the question of whether to let patrons use the stacks.  Personally I believe there's very little risk in having an open-stack policy, as long as patrons in the stacks practice social distancing.  Yes, the virus can survive for some days on paper, but there's little if any evidence that it can spread effectively that way.  But the fear of indirect infection among some staff and patrons is so great that we will probably have to limit circulation to curbside service for a time after we reopen.  My observation from working at academic libraries is that you rarely glimpse an undergrad in the stacks, but closing the stacks is going to be awkward for public library patrons and many faculty.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on May 05, 2020, 07:56:10 AM
My Twitter feed for a while was also full of doctors/nurses tweeting how they just had a patient in their 20s/30s die and COVID is a threat to everyone. It's important to recognize that those are outliers.

Massachusetts has a great dashboard that gets updated daily, reporting data by age: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-response-reporting

Of the 8,500 confirmed cases of people in their 20s, 149 have been hospitalized and 3 have died. The death rate across that entire age group is less than 1 per 100,000. For comparison, traffic deaths are about 14 per 100,000.

It's the 80+ group that gets hit massively by this. Of 10,500 confirmed cases, 2,100 have been hospitalized and 2,600 have died. The death rate in that age group is 884 per 100,000. That's around 1,000x higher than for people in their 20s.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 05, 2020, 09:52:41 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 05, 2020, 07:37:08 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 05, 2020, 07:21:50 AM
Until then, deaths will always be evaluated against the precautions put in place (or not) to prevent them.

Yes, and from a legal standpoint there is no way a school would be liable for a student catching the disease.
Unless they were somehow forced into a lab and the Dean shoved a sample of the virus up their nose.

Meanwhile, the whole "kids can't get sick, let's reopen schools" might not be looking so good. The NYT is reporting 15 hospitalised children (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/nyregion/children-Kawasaki-syndrome-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article).

The key words you're missing all through that story are "rare" and "dozens."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on May 05, 2020, 03:17:07 PM
Quote from: pigou on May 05, 2020, 07:56:10 AM
Of the 8,500 confirmed cases of people in their 20s, 149 have been hospitalized and 3 have died. The death rate across that entire age group is less than 1 per 100,000. For comparison, traffic deaths are about 14 per 100,000.

It's the 80+ group that gets hit massively by this. Of 10,500 confirmed cases, 2,100 have been hospitalized and 2,600 have died. The death rate in that age group is 884 per 100,000. That's around 1,000x higher than for people in their 20s.

The trouble with statistics like Pigou's (no offense, Pigou) is that they can lead to conclusions of "No worries, young people are hardly affected, open it back up!"

But apart from those three people in their 20s who have died, every one of those 8500 young people is at great risk of spreading the virus on to other people. It typically requires only one or two transmissions to get from a 20-year-old to someone in a category of significant risk. In the U.S., 1.8 million people are diagnosed with cancer every year — all of those people will be at risk. Add in the people who've had organ transplants, the people with immune diseases, and so on — it's not a negligible number of people. And these people are not walled off from the carriers in their 20s.

Even if we restrict our view to people in their 20s, there are 44 million of those in the U.S. Let's say half of them get the virus. 3 out of 8500 is a rate of 0.035%. At that rate it would mean 7700 deaths of people in their 20s. You may say, "Well, cars kill lots more than that!" Well, that's not good. 7700 additional people are still 100% dead.

And the worst of this argument is that, oh well, it only kills older people in significant numbers, so who cares? They mostly don't work and earn money any more, if they do earn money, they're probably taking up tenured positions that we want to get our hands on, they're annoying, their lives are worth less than those of the rest of us. All Lives Matter, but not old people's lives. Away with 'em!  Not going to go out of my way to save them!

I think this position is beneath our dignity. And when you in turn are one of these older people, you may come to believe it too.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on May 05, 2020, 05:33:23 PM
The transmission risk for elderly from residential college students is probably pretty minimal: they'd have to get infected on campus right just before they were traveling home for Thanksgiving to spend time with grand parents. Are we really mitigating that risk when we shut down hair salons? Or could we instead discourage holiday travel in the Fall semester? I wouldn't estimate a 0.035% case fatality rate either: most people in their 20s with mild symptoms wouldn't get tested and so this figure is likely too high.

I haven't argued that we should just let the elderly die. There's a very large continuum of responses between limiting the hours of the day people can leave their home (parts of Europe) and pretending nothing is happening and just letting it run its course (probably no country at this point). But if age groups differ in their risks, that matters: maybe we shouldn't allow visitors in long-term care facilities, but opening up primary and secondary schools is fine.

I'm not sure what our alternatives are to a gradual re-opening. We're seeing that throughout Asia and Europe and I suspect we'll see it beyond the red states in the US, too. A mass-produced vaccine is probably two years off in a near best-case scenario; longer if the first candidates don't work. Even if we could somehow increase our testing capacity 100x in the meantime and test all Americans every 10 days, we'd still get infections before people show symptoms. That's assuming we could get people to test with such regularity in the first place.

Tracing isn't looking very promising at this point either. Australia launched an app a week or so ago and fewer than 20% of people with smartphones have installed it. We'd need uptake around 100% of smartphone users for that to have a shot. And we kind of assume that everyone will get vaccinated when the vaccine becomes available... I don't know: H1N1 uptake was under 40% in the US and under 30% in Europe. It'll be higher now for sure, but enough to provide herd immunity? I'm skeptical, especially given that this vaccine won't have time to go through the usual safety testing phases. Unless we're willing to wait many more years, at least.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on May 06, 2020, 04:09:24 AM
It depends on what you mean by a residential campus, doesn't it?  A small liberal arts college may have all students living on campus, so the chief danger would be that they bring the infection to their professors, who are taking care of elderly parents, or when they go home for the winter break — hard to believe you could keep an appreciable amount of them on campus for the winter break. And then you'd have to hope that in spring 2021, when they go home for the summer, the infection has essentially vanished, and that none of them have any contact with elderly people, or work in stores that elderly people use such as grocery stores. And of course you'd have to hope that none of their professors were immune-compromised or over a certain age.

Our university, though, is heavily integrated with the outside world, which I would guess is true of most public universities and most urban universities. Our students already live off campus and work — in groceries, coffee shops, even in nursing homes. Many of them live in apartment buildings also used by non-students. Some 20% of them are married and have children. Their spouses are sometimes students, sometimes just people who work in the community. They are no less integrated with the general population than a non-university student. A good percentage of the American university population is in this category.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on May 06, 2020, 04:52:37 AM
from pigou:  Are we really mitigating that risk when we shut down hair salons?

As someone whose hair is getting longer and greyer by the nanosecond, I will continue to avoid visits to the hair salon, as I can be fairly confident that it is absolutely impossible for anyone with a head stuck in the wash sink to wear a mask.....and that means the head in the wash sink right next to mine. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 06, 2020, 04:58:33 AM
Quote from: pigou on May 05, 2020, 05:33:23 PM

Tracing isn't looking very promising at this point either. Australia launched an app a week or so ago and fewer than 20% of people with smartphones have installed it. We'd need uptake around 100% of smartphone users for that to have a shot. And we kind of assume that everyone will get vaccinated when the vaccine becomes available... I don't know: H1N1 uptake was under 40% in the US and under 30% in Europe. It'll be higher now for sure, but enough to provide herd immunity? I'm skeptical, especially given that this vaccine won't have time to go through the usual safety testing phases. Unless we're willing to wait many more years, at least.

That Australian App isn't actually even really being used yet. The data is being collected but the health authorities aren't using it yet, so I wouldn't take that number as a benchmark. Apps would only be part of contact tracing. Trevor Beford, a Washington Virologist had a twitter thread where he pointed out that contact tracing isn't an all or nothing proposition. Even very modestly successful contact tracing could reduce transmission by significant amounts.

I think that's the thing that lots of discussion about mitigation measures misses. Is reducing student numbers in class going to make it impossible for students to transmit the virus to each other or others? Banning more than one visitor in a room? No, of course not, but everything that reduces the number of people who could be exposed chips away at the transmission number. Do enough of those things and that's the difference between having a growing outbreak that forces more drastic measures and something that can be managed.

I wouldn't make assumptions about how many people would get a vaccine based on flu vaccines. First, and most obviously, this is a lot worse than the flu. It has also made a huge impact on our lives in the way that no flu strain in recent times has. The 2014-15 year was the worst in at least ten years. I think there were 70k deaths or so. We are already past that no matter how you count. Nothing shut down, there weren't constant ambulance sirens in NYC or temporary hospitals being set up. I can promise you that a high proportion of the population will want to get a vaccine if it becomes available. It will also probably be a good deal more protective than a flu vaccine. I would also assume that a vaccine would be required by schools, as well as lots of employers. You'd be down to a hard core of anti vaccers who would refuse.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on May 06, 2020, 07:06:44 AM
Quote from: pigou on May 05, 2020, 05:33:23 PM
.... and pretending nothing is happening and just letting it run its course (probably no country at this point).

Letting it run its course is more or less what Sweden is doing, and definitely the Brazilian federal government (although some state government have implemented serious restrictions that the federal government is actively fighting). It appears to be Nicaraguan policy also. Officially Turkmenistan and North Korea have no cases; reportedly in Turkmenistan you can be arrested for wearing a face mask. If they are lying about having no cases then they're just letting the disease run its course.


A vaccine isn't necessarily the only way this ends. An effective cure would also allow re-opening. It was the use of Tamiflu, and social distancing, that stopped swine flu in Mexico City. If a safe, effective drug (or cocktail of drugs) for it becomes widely available, that would largely be pandemic over. There are also serious suggestions that, for some reason, the TB vaccine may confer some protection, which if confirmed might mean a combo of track-and-trace, mass use of the TB vaccine and whatever drug treatments are available might be a game-changer, even if none of them are a game-changer on their own.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 06, 2020, 08:33:26 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on May 06, 2020, 07:06:44 AM

A vaccine isn't necessarily the only way this ends. An effective cure would also allow re-opening. It was the use of Tamiflu, and social distancing, that stopped swine flu in Mexico City.

Swine flu wasn't contained. It spread all over the world. It just turned out that it actually was a pretty mild strain of flu. My impression is that a "cure" isn't very likely in the sense of some drug that would make this no big deal. Viral infections are hard to cure. Tamiflu does seem to reduce the time people are sick with flu if they get it really early, but there's not any clear consensus that it reduces mortality rates. Drugs and treatments could help, but I wouldn't expect any of them to be a magic bullet.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on May 06, 2020, 11:34:43 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on May 06, 2020, 07:06:44 AM
Quote from: pigou on May 05, 2020, 05:33:23 PM
.... and pretending nothing is happening and just letting it run its course (probably no country at this point).

Letting it run its course is more or less what Sweden is doing, and definitely the Brazilian federal government (although some state government have implemented serious restrictions that the federal government is actively fighting). It appears to be Nicaraguan policy also. Officially Turkmenistan and North Korea have no cases; reportedly in Turkmenistan you can be arrested for wearing a face mask. If they are lying about having no cases then they're just letting the disease run its course.


A vaccine isn't necessarily the only way this ends. An effective cure would also allow re-opening. It was the use of Tamiflu, and social distancing, that stopped swine flu in Mexico City. If a safe, effective drug (or cocktail of drugs) for it becomes widely available, that would largely be pandemic over. There are also serious suggestions that, for some reason, the TB vaccine may confer some protection, which if confirmed might mean a combo of track-and-trace, mass use of the TB vaccine and whatever drug treatments are available might be a game-changer, even if none of them are a game-changer on their own.

And as we open up the economy, this is functionally what we will be doing as well.  It worked somewhat in Sweden due to public acceptance of social distancing and other measures, but they ended up having about 24,000 cases and 3,000 deaths compared to Denmark (10,000 cases, 500 deaths) and Norway (8,000 cases and 200 deaths).  Sweden's population is roughly twice that of their neighbors, so, even adjusting for population size, Sweden has had a substantial case load.

Sweden appeared to take the approach that they were willing to let the disease run through the population as fast as possible so as to achieve a reasonable amount of herd immunity as quickly as possible.  Britain tried the same thing - at least until Boris got it at which point they backpedaled fast.  In the long run, Sweden may possibly have chosen the better option if they can get to the 60% herd immunity figure I've seen as being required.  But in the short run, they appear to have accepted some very troubling outcomes.

Unlike bacteria, viruses are intra-cellular pathogens which has made finding viracidal drugs very difficult.  Drugs like Tamiflu (and it seems Remdesivir) shorten the course of the disease by a a few days, but are not a cure.  And in the case of Tamiflu, if therapy is not started very early in the course of influenza, it's generally ineffective.  The pandemic will likely subside when a combination of an effective vaccine and sufficient herd immunity have been achieved.  And that ain't gonna be before school opens in the fall.

Change of topic -- I was in Target yesterday picking up some essentials (wine and whisky mostly).  Maybe 50% of the people were wearing a mask, but social distancing was pretty much universal.  There was one older guy in the checkout area without a mask.  He was expounding loudly to everyone within earshot how he was not about to let no gub'mnt tell him what to do.  It was all I could do to keep my big mouth shut, pay for my stuff and get out of there. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: polly_mer on May 06, 2020, 12:44:00 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 05, 2020, 09:52:41 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 05, 2020, 07:37:08 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 05, 2020, 07:21:50 AM
Until then, deaths will always be evaluated against the precautions put in place (or not) to prevent them.

Yes, and from a legal standpoint there is no way a school would be liable for a student catching the disease.
Unless they were somehow forced into a lab and the Dean shoved a sample of the virus up their nose.

Meanwhile, the whole "kids can't get sick, let's reopen schools" might not be looking so good. The NYT is reporting 15 hospitalised children (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/nyregion/children-Kawasaki-syndrome-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article).

The key words you're missing all through that story are "rare" and "dozens."

Try this article instead https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/health/coronavirus-children-transmission-school.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer


It turns out when you actually test kids, the kids are indeed infected and can spread it to others, just like adult asymptomatic spreaders, even if the kids themselves don't become hospitalized in large numbers.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on May 06, 2020, 02:00:48 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 06, 2020, 08:33:26 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on May 06, 2020, 07:06:44 AM

A vaccine isn't necessarily the only way this ends. An effective cure would also allow re-opening. It was the use of Tamiflu, and social distancing, that stopped swine flu in Mexico City.

Swine flu wasn't contained. It spread all over the world.

I wrote how it was stopped eventually in Mexico City (the worst-affected place), I didn't say it was contained which indeed it wasn't. It wasn't that mild, either. But it wasn't very contagious and there was a reasonably effective treatment from nearly the start.

Quote from: secundem_artem on May 06, 2020, 11:34:43 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on May 06, 2020, 07:06:44 AM
Quote from: pigou on May 05, 2020, 05:33:23 PM
.... and pretending nothing is happening and just letting it run its course (probably no country at this point).

Letting it run its course is more or less what Sweden is doing, and definitely the Brazilian federal government (although some state government have implemented serious restrictions that the federal government is actively fighting). It appears to be Nicaraguan policy also. Officially Turkmenistan and North Korea have no cases; reportedly in Turkmenistan you can be arrested for wearing a face mask. If they are lying about having no cases then they're just letting the disease run its course.


A vaccine isn't necessarily the only way this ends. An effective cure would also allow re-opening. It was the use of Tamiflu, and social distancing, that stopped swine flu in Mexico City. If a safe, effective drug (or cocktail of drugs) for it becomes widely available, that would largely be pandemic over. There are also serious suggestions that, for some reason, the TB vaccine may confer some protection, which if confirmed might mean a combo of track-and-trace, mass use of the TB vaccine and whatever drug treatments are available might be a game-changer, even if none of them are a game-changer on their own.

And as we open up the economy, this is functionally what we will be doing as well.  It worked somewhat in Sweden due to public acceptance of social distancing and other measures, but they ended up having about 24,000 cases and 3,000 deaths compared to Denmark (10,000 cases, 500 deaths) and Norway (8,000 cases and 200 deaths).  Sweden's population is roughly twice that of their neighbors, so, even adjusting for population size, Sweden has had a substantial case load.

Sweden appeared to take the approach that they were willing to let the disease run through the population as fast as possible so as to achieve a reasonable amount of herd immunity as quickly as possible.  Britain tried the same thing - at least until Boris got it at which point they backpedaled fast.  In the long run, Sweden may possibly have chosen the better option if they can get to the 60% herd immunity figure I've seen as being required.  But in the short run, they appear to have accepted some very troubling outcomes.

Deaths per million are significantly worse in Sweden than in the US, so I'd dispute that it "worked somewhat," unless you're comparing only with Italy and Spain. Apart from the UK and the Netherlands, Sweden is by the same criterion the worst-affected country in Northern Europe. As I've written before, the Western response (except basically in New Zealand) has been an abject failure.
Sure, there are plenty of measures, like shutting down schools and businesses, that can't continue indefinitely. But other useful measures most certainly can - South Korean-style testing and contact tracing, the use of facemasks in public (which in the Far East is close to 100%) and selective, local lockdowns if cases shoot up. Note that the Far East is largely reopening or has largely re-opened, so it makes sense economically (with the Spanish flu, there is evidence the places that dealt with it best in terms of minimizing casualties also had the most vigorous economic recovery). By international standards, the Swedish approach is objectively a failure, and any evidence-based approach needs to look at places that were actually, objectively successful (Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea, Macao, New Zealand and even Costa Rica) rather than at what fits our prejudices.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 06, 2020, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on May 06, 2020, 12:44:00 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 05, 2020, 09:52:41 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 05, 2020, 07:37:08 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 05, 2020, 07:21:50 AM
Until then, deaths will always be evaluated against the precautions put in place (or not) to prevent them.

Yes, and from a legal standpoint there is no way a school would be liable for a student catching the disease.
Unless they were somehow forced into a lab and the Dean shoved a sample of the virus up their nose.

Meanwhile, the whole "kids can't get sick, let's reopen schools" might not be looking so good. The NYT is reporting 15 hospitalised children (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/nyregion/children-Kawasaki-syndrome-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article).

The key words you're missing all through that story are "rare" and "dozens."

Try this article instead https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/health/coronavirus-children-transmission-school.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer


It turns out when you actually test kids, the kids are indeed infected and can spread it to others, just like adult asymptomatic spreaders, even if the kids themselves don't become hospitalized in large numbers.

Important to note that there's actually not a lot of clarity around this. See https://twitter.com/mugecevik/status/1257392347010215947 for a much more extensive take that tries to look at multiple studies.
Suffice to say, it is actually a pretty complicated question.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on May 06, 2020, 02:10:29 PM
All good stuff upthread, but it seems that even deaths [not just infections, which differ on account of the extent of testing] are reported differently across European countries. One confounder is that some countries report non-hospital corona deaths and some don't. Belgian public health officials, covering a comparatively high death rate, are adamant about this. Apparently, what is classified as a corona death also differs across European countries.

Thus, it's too early to say which approach at which time has been best or worst.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on May 06, 2020, 02:23:30 PM
Straight-up deaths (as in: brute numbers of decedents, irrespective of cause) are reported pretty standardly and comprehensively everywhere though, aren't they? So I imagine that the most telling number will result from comparing the death rate for the relevant months to previous years' tallies, and seeing how large the excess is. While that won't tell you the number of direct COVID deaths, it will give you a pretty accurate accounting of COVID's butcher's bill (since it's killing both directly and indirectly).

IIRC, that's how the numbers get calculated for major natural disasters, among other things.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on May 06, 2020, 02:35:29 PM
Sure [though I don't like calling the unexplained residual the number we want]. Now different countries had different start dates and have tried various responses. Some will have earlier deaths [Sweden] and some will have later deaths [Germany]. With the residual method, too, we'll have to wait and see which approach[es] worked best.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on May 06, 2020, 03:08:21 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on May 06, 2020, 02:00:48 PM

Deaths per million are significantly worse in Sweden than in the US, so I'd dispute that it "worked somewhat," unless you're comparing only with Italy and Spain. Apart from the UK and the Netherlands, Sweden is by the same criterion the worst-affected country in Northern Europe. As I've written before, the Western response (except basically in New Zealand) has been an abject failure.
Sure, there are plenty of measures, like shutting down schools and businesses, that can't continue indefinitely. But other useful measures most certainly can - South Korean-style testing and contact tracing, the use of facemasks in public (which in the Far East is close to 100%) and selective, local lockdowns if cases shoot up. Note that the Far East is largely reopening or has largely re-opened, so it makes sense economically (with the Spanish flu, there is evidence the places that dealt with it best in terms of minimizing casualties also had the most vigorous economic recovery). By international standards, the Swedish approach is objectively a failure, and any evidence-based approach needs to look at places that were actually, objectively successful (Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea, Macao, New Zealand and even Costa Rica) rather than at what fits our prejudices.

Thanks for this post.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on May 07, 2020, 07:09:32 AM
@Cheerful: You're welcome!

Quote from: dismalist on May 06, 2020, 02:10:29 PM
All good stuff upthread, but it seems that even deaths [not just infections, which differ on account of the extent of testing] are reported differently across European countries. One confounder is that some countries report non-hospital corona deaths and some don't. Belgian public health officials, covering a comparatively high death rate, are adamant about this. Apparently, what is classified as a corona death also differs across European countries.

Thus, it's too early to say which approach at which time has been best or worst.

Where numbers are of the same order of magnitude, yes, they might get skewed by all sorts of things. There is substantial undercounting of the dead in some places (the corpses rotting on the streets of Guayaquil weren't tested) and many governments may be undercounting by a combo of insufficient testing and by design (not just the North Korean figure of zero cases, but also very likely Venezuela and Mexico). But given that the number of dead per million population is nearly three orders of magnitude worse in Sweden than in Taiwan, that can't be accounted for by simple methodological differences of who you count, etc. Those issues could account for the differences between the Netherlands and Belgium (which seems to be overcounting) or between Italy and Spain, but not for the vast chasm between Sweden and Taiwan, and I don't think they could even account for the substantial difference between Germany and most of Europe.


The experience of Singapore suggests having schools open is not catastrophic on its own in terms of transmission, if done with precautions like having everyone wear facemasks and taking everyone's temperature.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 07, 2020, 07:27:10 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on May 07, 2020, 07:09:32 AM

The experience of Singapore suggests having schools open is not catastrophic on its own in terms of transmission, if done with precautions like having everyone wear facemasks and taking everyone's temperature.

But this is almost meaningless in the context of the US, where the acceptance of those sorts of restrictions by governments is challenged routinely and vehemently.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on May 07, 2020, 12:04:17 PM
To judge from social media we do seem to be polarising into the "open everything NOW!" folks and the "stay locked down people are at risk!!". Both seem to be operating from false premises (that if we declare the shutdown is over, everything will snap back to how it was at the start of March vs the idea that it's possible to keep everyone locked down indefinitely).
I'm pretty timid about it myself (look at when I started this thread!).


Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on May 07, 2020, 02:22:19 PM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 07, 2020, 12:04:17 PM
To judge from social media we do seem to be polarising into the "open everything NOW!" folks and the "stay locked down people are at risk!!". Both seem to be operating from false premises (that if we declare the shutdown is over, everything will snap back to how it was at the start of March vs the idea that it's possible to keep everyone locked down indefinitely).
I'm pretty timid about it myself (look at when I started this thread!).

Yes.  The polarization is troubling.  I'm disappointed that this country can't unite around facts (if we could agree on some reliable info from reliable sources), think things through carefully, have compassion (both sides are full of people struggling in various ways), and confront this challenge united rather than selfishly, fearfully divided.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on May 07, 2020, 02:27:50 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 07, 2020, 07:27:10 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on May 07, 2020, 07:09:32 AM

The experience of Singapore suggests having schools open is not catastrophic on its own in terms of transmission, if done with precautions like having everyone wear facemasks and taking everyone's temperature.

But this is almost meaningless in the context of the US, where the acceptance of those sorts of restrictions by governments is challenged routinely and vehemently.

Yes, probably, but then again Americans have accepted metal detectors, etc in schools.

In other news, Israel seems to be making good progress in producing antibodies against this pandemic.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on May 07, 2020, 02:39:34 PM
QuoteI'm disappointed that this country can't unite around facts

Even IF everyone agreed on the facts, the implication or application of those facts would still be divisive

It is one thing to agree that the glass can be Both 1/2 empty and 1/2 full. It is another to deal with those that want to add water and those that want to dump the water that is there. 

The  problem here is that some say 'My business will die and I will starve" if we Dont Reopen and that some worry "I will die and my dependents will starve" IF we reopen too soon! 

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on May 07, 2020, 04:24:43 PM
And everyone in power seems to be okay with workers running out of money and being in desperate straits, as long as we don't give them any more financial support — that's the key thing. No more support to poor people! It's only the wealthy who have enough money to buy themselves some extra support.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 07, 2020, 05:11:25 PM
Quote from: clean on May 07, 2020, 02:39:34 PM
QuoteI'm disappointed that this country can't unite around facts

Even IF everyone agreed on the facts, the implication or application of those facts would still be divisive

It is one thing to agree that the glass can be Both 1/2 empty and 1/2 full. It is another to deal with those that want to add water and those that want to dump the water that is there. 

The  problem here is that some say 'My business will die and I will starve" if we Dont Reopen and that some worry "I will die and my dependents will starve" IF we reopen too soon!

Its a false choice. The economy isn't going to just humming right along again while lots of people are getting sick and dying. Also, obviously lockdowns are a temporary measure, and do need to be lifted over time. But if you do it soon you aren't going to help the economy.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on May 08, 2020, 01:34:28 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 07, 2020, 05:11:25 PM
Quote from: clean on May 07, 2020, 02:39:34 PM
QuoteI'm disappointed that this country can't unite around facts

Even IF everyone agreed on the facts, the implication or application of those facts would still be divisive
It would be debatable, it need not be divisive.  Give me an argument that starts from agreed upon baselines any day over this madness.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 08, 2020, 02:01:23 PM
Quote from: FishProf on May 08, 2020, 01:34:28 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 07, 2020, 05:11:25 PM
Quote from: clean on May 07, 2020, 02:39:34 PM
QuoteI'm disappointed that this country can't unite around facts

Even IF everyone agreed on the facts, the implication or application of those facts would still be divisive
It would be debatable, it need not be divisive.  Give me an argument that starts from agreed upon baselines any day over this madness.

The real problem is that people on both ends of the political spectrum have been led to believe, (by politicians and journalists who should know better), that problems have "ideal" solutions, if only the "will" exists to implement them. The reality is that EVERY potential solution involves a trade-off of some sort, and will have some unpleasant but unavoidable consequences. And there is no objective way to pick the "best" solution; which solution is "best" depends on a subjective weighting of various factors.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on May 08, 2020, 02:30:11 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 08, 2020, 02:01:23 PM
The reality is that EVERY potential solution involves a trade-off of some sort, and will have some unpleasant but unavoidable consequences. And there is no objective way to pick the "best" solution; which solution is "best" depends on a subjective weighting of various factors.

This is what gets me, it seems some people hold the platonic ideal of NO corona deaths, and judge anything against that. I'm not of the "let 'er rip, herd immunity, devil take the hindmost" school by any means. But it seems like people are not seeing this disease clearly. We're getting told numbers of deaths, which sound huge on their own - without recognising that thousands of people die every day anyway. Often from things that better laws or treatment might have prevented.
At the same time, 40,000 people die in the US each year from road accidents. If we banned cars, that number could be brought down to zero. But nobody wants to do that.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on May 08, 2020, 02:47:48 PM
40K?  Perhaps we are a bit behind. A google search moments ago indicated that the deaths in the US are now at least 77727. 
nearly double 40K!!  And this is not over a whole year, but primarily in six weeks!  That sounds pretty significant to me! 

IS 77727 a Lot compared to .... pick a big number.  Maybe not, but a quick calculation of the death rate is pretty jarring.

77727 died = (178000+77727) of resolved - dead or recovered- illness gives a rate of 30%!

That sounds pretty ominous, and something that one may want to avoid!

Certainly, the 'recovered' number may be under reported, but it IS what we have now. 

So, compare 77727 deaths IN Six Weeks to those other "X people die of bee stings" comparisons and we can really see the significance of this for those of us that watch it, and  may have 'contributing factors'.

my source:
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+th+CV19+death+rate%3F&rlz=1C1GCEV_en&oq=what+is+th+CV19+death+rate%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.11433j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on May 08, 2020, 03:20:56 PM
Quote from: clean on May 08, 2020, 02:47:48 PM
40K?  Perhaps we are a bit behind. A google search moments ago indicated that the deaths in the US are now at least 77727. 
nearly double 40K!!  And this is not over a whole year, but primarily in six weeks!  That sounds pretty significant to me! 

Please show where I (or anyone else) said it wasn't significant. I'm not sure who you think you are arguing with.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on May 08, 2020, 03:22:18 PM
I'm not sure what numbers clean is looking at

Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

As of 1720hrs EDT - 77,000 deaths and 1.3million cases in the US = 5.9% case fatality rate
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on May 08, 2020, 03:27:24 PM
1.3 million is the number of cases.  Many are not yet resolved, so they are not yet included in the death rate calculation.

As I indicated, the death rate is calculated on the resolved cases.  77727 have died (resolved) and 178K have recovered (resolved) The rest May Recover or May Resolve.

Dividing by the total infected is not the way to calculate the rate (correctly).


Also, I must have misread about the comparison to the Auto Deaths, but as we have nearly doubled the annual rate of auto deaths, in only six weeks, it would seem that more should be done than whatever it is we do about auto deaths.  (I remember Arrive Alive 55!  ... but Im getting old (and adding to my 'additional complications' category))
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 08, 2020, 03:34:10 PM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 08, 2020, 02:30:11 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 08, 2020, 02:01:23 PM
The reality is that EVERY potential solution involves a trade-off of some sort, and will have some unpleasant but unavoidable consequences. And there is no objective way to pick the "best" solution; which solution is "best" depends on a subjective weighting of various factors.

This is what gets me, it seems some people hold the platonic ideal of NO corona deaths, and judge anything against that. I'm not of the "let 'er rip, herd immunity, devil take the hindmost" school by any means. But it seems like people are not seeing this disease clearly. We're getting told numbers of deaths, which sound huge on their own - without recognising that thousands of people die every day anyway. Often from things that better laws or treatment might have prevented.
At the same time, 40,000 people die in the US each year from road accidents. If we banned cars, that number could be brought down to zero. But nobody wants to do that.

But the deaths are much more concentrated. There have been over 40 deaths here in one nursing home in 6 weeks. That is a LOT higher death rate than under normal circumstances.  Other nursing homes haven't had a single case (let alone death) because of extreme caution. That makes it very different from auto accidents and things like that.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on May 08, 2020, 03:43:29 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 08, 2020, 03:34:10 PM
But the deaths are much more concentrated. There have been over 40 deaths here in one nursing home in 6 weeks. That is a LOT higher death rate than under normal circumstances.  Other nursing homes haven't had a single case (let alone death) because of extreme caution. That makes it very different from auto accidents and things like that.

Yes, concentrated deaths - that's how contagious diseases work. For road accidents, we assume a risk every time we get in a car our whole lives. Our covid risk is only while the disease is actively circulating and we are either not immune or (in the future) not vaccinated.

But again, in a typical six week (non-covid) period, 380,000 people will die in the US (from all causes). We don't know whether 2020 will actually have a much higher death rate than 2019 overall. (To be brutal, some of the covid victims would have died of something else, meanwhile other people who would have died did not - the shutdown does mean fewer industrial accidents etc). We won't actually know the true impact of this illness for another year at least.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on May 08, 2020, 03:52:05 PM
Ah, yeah, there are many death rates and different people die.

We have

-the Case Fatality Rate is the proportion of people who die who have tested positive for the disease; and the

-the Infection Fatality Rate is the proportion of people who die after having the infection overall.

Thus, for Corona in the US, the CFR is a big  number and the IFR is 6.9%.

In fact, the IFR is far lower than 6.9% on account we have no clue how many have been infected. A not completely random, but nevertheless informative sample in New York State found that 15% in that state as a whole had been infected, and that 21% in NYC had been infected. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/new-york-antibody-study-estimates-13point9percent-of-residents-have-had-the-coronavirus-cuomo-says.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/new-york-antibody-study-estimates-13point9percent-of-residents-have-had-the-coronavirus-cuomo-says.html)

The concentration of deaths in nursing homes, really among people living in close quarters, actually makes it cheaper to combat the outbreak. Those who need to be isolated from the population at large and from each other are the old and otherwise vulnerable, not everybody else.

No reason to panic on the Titanic, at least not yet! :-)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 08, 2020, 06:38:29 PM
Quote from: clean on May 08, 2020, 02:47:48 PM
40K?  Perhaps we are a bit behind. A google search moments ago indicated that the deaths in the US are now at least 77727. 
nearly double 40K!!  And this is not over a whole year, but primarily in six weeks!  That sounds pretty significant to me! 

IS 77727 a Lot compared to .... pick a big number.  Maybe not, but a quick calculation of the death rate is pretty jarring.

77727 died = (178000+77727) of resolved - dead or recovered- illness gives a rate of 30%!

That sounds pretty ominous, and something that one may want to avoid!


I'm with you on the broader point, but this is a pointless and meaningless statistic. First of all, there's no need to try to do this kind of  calculation in the first place. We actually do now have a pretty decent fix on the fatality rate of symptomatic patients. Its probably around 1-2 percent. IFR is more complicated. But, actually we don't have even have to get into this for these numbers. Just go to worldometer and look at how much the resolved cases statistic varies. Do you think that people in Germany who get Covid are 6 times less likely to die than in France?

Those numbers are mostly just about how countries report recoveries, which I believe is mostly about whether they test people to see if they are negative and when. The US has had trouble testing people in the first place so doesn't seem to be doing much of this (I don't think it really matters, there's data showing people are generally not infectious once they recover, whether or not you can find some virus)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on May 09, 2020, 02:07:43 AM
More evidence that the USA is a Third World country: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/opinion/us-denmark-economy.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/opinion/us-denmark-economy.html).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 09, 2020, 06:14:44 AM
Quote from: dismalist on May 08, 2020, 03:52:05 PM

The concentration of deaths in nursing homes, really among people living in close quarters, actually makes it cheaper to combat the outbreak. Those who need to be isolated from the population at large and from each other are the old and otherwise vulnerable, not everybody else.

No reason to panic on the Titanic, at least not yet! :-)

This doesn't really make any sense. Or, maybe to put it better, it only makes sense in some imaginary world where "the old and otherwise vulnerable" can somehow be separated out from the rest of the population. Sure, we need to pay particular attention to settings like prisons and nursing homes. That's a very important part of managing this. But, there are lots of vulnerable people who can't simply be isolated. Lots of older people live with family members who have jobs that require them to leave the house. There are also lots of people with health conditions that make them vulnerable who can't just stay home.

It is also true that while deaths are really concentrated among people with pre-existing conditions and older people, this actually is orders of magnitude worse in terms of both death rate and significant illness than flu for everybody except kids. (Still true, rare syndrome aside) It isn't practical to "isolate" everyone for ever, but we certainly should be doing long term things that will keep the infection rate down, including testing and tracing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ciao_yall on May 09, 2020, 09:08:34 AM
Quote from: Caracal on May 08, 2020, 06:38:29 PM
Quote from: clean on May 08, 2020, 02:47:48 PM
40K?  Perhaps we are a bit behind. A google search moments ago indicated that the deaths in the US are now at least 77727. 
nearly double 40K!!  And this is not over a whole year, but primarily in six weeks!  That sounds pretty significant to me! 

IS 77727 a Lot compared to .... pick a big number.  Maybe not, but a quick calculation of the death rate is pretty jarring.

77727 died = (178000+77727) of resolved - dead or recovered- illness gives a rate of 30%!

That sounds pretty ominous, and something that one may want to avoid!


I'm with you on the broader point, but this is a pointless and meaningless statistic. First of all, there's no need to try to do this kind of  calculation in the first place. We actually do now have a pretty decent fix on the fatality rate of symptomatic patients. Its probably around 1-2 percent. IFR is more complicated. But, actually we don't have even have to get into this for these numbers. Just go to worldometer and look at how much the resolved cases statistic varies. Do you think that people in Germany who get Covid are 6 times less likely to die than in France?

Those numbers are mostly just about how countries report recoveries, which I believe is mostly about whether they test people to see if they are negative and when. The US has had trouble testing people in the first place so doesn't seem to be doing much of this (I don't think it really matters, there's data showing people are generally not infectious once they recover, whether or not you can find some virus)

This.

I have been tracking our local numbers. We had very limited testing for a while so our numbers looked good. That said, we quickly went into shelter-in-place. People have been cooperative. Our hospitals have been very quiet. Stabilized around 2% new cases per day, very few deaths.

In the news, there have been occasional reports of a cluster of cases in a vulnerable area - a nursing home or homeless shelter. The numbers pop a little that day but then go back to low.

Now that there are more tests, they are testing much more broadly. There was a spike the other day that I assume was related to a community study.

So we'll see.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on May 13, 2020, 06:55:44 AM
I'm still not sure what the place I teach will be doing after the summer.

The CHE chart here is interesting
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Here-s-a-List-of-Colleges-/248626

Suggests 70% of schools are planning to be in-person in the fall. I'm wondering though how many say that now, to sound positive (and get enrolments) while secretly anticipating having to stay online? Much easier to tell people who have planned to in-person to go online, than tell people who have planned for online to get themselves into the classroom on Monday....
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on May 13, 2020, 07:16:55 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 13, 2020, 06:55:44 AM
Suggests 70% of schools are planning to be in-person in the fall.

That many campuses fully in-person seems unlikely.  More likely to have at least 70% mostly online for fall.  "Mostly online" meaning a few exceptions for particular programs with restricted time and conditions on campus.

I applaud Cal State for making the decision public now so that 500,000 students, faculty, and staff can plan accordingly.

Many universities start up in late August.  Make the decision and let people know by June 15.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 07:21:02 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on May 13, 2020, 07:16:55 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 13, 2020, 06:55:44 AM
Suggests 70% of schools are planning to be in-person in the fall.

That many campuses fully in-person seems unlikely.  More likely to have at least 70% mostly online for fall.  "Mostly online" meaning a few exceptions for particular programs with restricted time and conditions on campus.


"Mostly online" is pretty much like "a little bit pregnant".
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on May 13, 2020, 07:27:18 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 07:21:02 AM
"Mostly online" is pretty much like "a little bit pregnant".

How so?  Some campus labs are still being visited during the shutdown.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: polly_mer on May 13, 2020, 08:06:37 AM
For those who like actual science: Chemical and Engineering News reviews vaccine development. (https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/Adenoviral-vectors-new-COVID-19/98/i19)

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 08:09:25 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on May 13, 2020, 07:27:18 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 07:21:02 AM
"Mostly online" is pretty much like "a little bit pregnant".

How so?  Some campus labs are still being visited during the shutdown.

So if a student is taking one course with a lab, do they have to live on campus, but if they're taking no lab courses they are supposed to stay home? If they drop a lab course during they term, are they supposed to go home? Should people on the waiting list for a lab course have their bags packed in case they have to move on campus?

And this doesn't even start to adress the physical distancing issues for labs. For instance, if a lab already has enough sections that it's in operation most hours of the week, what do you do if you have to cut the number of students per section in half for distancing purposes? Labs often require people to work with a partner; do all labs need to get adapted so everyone works alone? If not, how do partners distance when they're working at the same bench?

"Mostly online" vastly understates the effort required to adapt labs for the current situation, whether by "virtuallizing" them or by trying to adapt them for face to face but with all of the covid safety measures required.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on May 13, 2020, 09:09:00 AM
Thanks, marshwiggle.  Yes, complex and problematic.

I was thinking mainly of faculty researchers and maybe a few grad students coming in to use labs periodically, not volumes of undergrads.  No can do on lots of undergrads. I don't have any answers.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on May 13, 2020, 09:44:43 AM
I don't believe any college, including my own, that says it's for-sure open for residential, in-person activities in the fall. I believe that's their/our intention, but I won't believe it will actually happen until August. There are too many variables, too much that can happen between now and then that will change social distancing and other requirements. As Yogi Berra said, "Making predictions is hard, especially about the future."

I talked with a lab TA yesterday. We had to do an abrupt change in the middle of the semester. I think it was an adequate experience for the students, but would not be sufficient for a full semester.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on May 13, 2020, 09:55:32 AM
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: polly_mer on May 13, 2020, 10:05:39 AM
Quote from: spork on May 13, 2020, 09:55:32 AM
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y)

The key phrase in that article is "in cell culture".  Therefore, worth funding for more research, but nowhere near ready for prime time.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 10:19:11 AM
Quote from: pgher on May 13, 2020, 09:44:43 AM
I talked with a lab TA yesterday. We had to do an abrupt change in the middle of the semester. I think it was an adequate experience for the students, but would not be sufficient for a full semester.

Exactly. Virtuallizing labs is HARD. Adapting labs for distancing is HARD. But they are mutually exclusive in terms of how to adapt. So this past term everyone did the best they could because it was completely unpredictable. In the Fall, perparation has to be for one or the other. Switching partway through the term would be, as the saying goes, a fecal display.

No-one can be blamed for the disruption last term. That's NOT the case for the Fall.

A couple of phrases come to mind:
"Failing to plan is plannig to fail"
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Any place that opens face to face and then has to revert to virtual deserves any and all the criticism they get.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on May 13, 2020, 10:42:53 AM
Quote"Mostly online" is pretty much like "a little bit pregnant".

How so?  Some campus labs are still being visited during the shutdown.

Some pregnant women still get 'visited' by the fetus' father as well.



The longer story...

in college I worked at a pharmacy. I was very quiet and shy and easily embarrassed then (probably still am).  I knew that the pharmacist I was working for had been trying to get pregnant.  When she announced that she was I said, for me the most outlandish thing I could think of.  "Oh, so now you can quit practicing".  Right away she replied (and embarased me for bringing it up, "Oh now, Now you have to keep adding the parts. The difference between a boy and a girl is just one time!"   She continued, "Later in the pregnancy the doctor will tell you to stop having sex. That means that the baby is done.  And that is why new mothers inspect the baby to count the fingers and toes to make sure that there are neither too many (they didnt stop) or too few (they didnt do it enough)."

And as THIS was a medical professional It MUST be true!  (Of course now that I have related that story and it is on the internet, you can discount it now).

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on May 13, 2020, 11:15:10 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 10:19:11 AM
Quote from: pgher on May 13, 2020, 09:44:43 AM
I talked with a lab TA yesterday. We had to do an abrupt change in the middle of the semester. I think it was an adequate experience for the students, but would not be sufficient for a full semester.

Exactly. Virtuallizing labs is HARD. Adapting labs for distancing is HARD. But they are mutually exclusive in terms of how to adapt. So this past term everyone did the best they could because it was completely unpredictable. In the Fall, perparation has to be for one or the other. Switching partway through the term would be, as the saying goes, a fecal display.

No-one can be blamed for the disruption last term. That's NOT the case for the Fall.

A couple of phrases come to mind:
"Failing to plan is plannig to fail"
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Any place that opens face to face and then has to revert to virtual deserves any and all the criticism they get.

Well, I'll be stocking up on popcorn so I can sit back and watch the inevitable sh!tstorm when my university's lack of planning puts us in an entirely preventable crisis.

I had TWO WEEKS, a budget of $0, and no access to campus to make my labs online for Spring quarter.  What I've created is pretty gosh darn amazing considering the circumstances.  But it's not comparable to in person.   Yes, the learning goals are the same; yes, the content is similar; yes, the students are getting experience with experimental design.  But it's just not the same from the hand-on, interactive, peer-instruction level.

I know, even if the admins don't admit it yet, that our Fall classes will all be online.  Might be a few exceptions for some very small, upper division labs.  But we just don't have the space to keep folks at least 6 feet apart!  I'll be spending Summer improving my big intro labs so they are a better experience.  And here I was sort of hoping that this was a one-off . . . .
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on May 13, 2020, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on May 13, 2020, 11:15:10 AM

I know, even if the admins don't admit it yet, that our Fall classes will all be online. 

This. So, so this.

The two big universities in town have already announced they'll be mostly online in the fall. Ours is postponing the realization for as long as it can, but the reality is that our classroom barely fit the 35 they're all supposed to take.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 11:40:48 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on May 13, 2020, 11:15:10 AM

I had TWO WEEKS, a budget of $0, and no access to campus to make my labs online for Spring quarter.
As Marvin (from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy") would say, "Not an electronic sausage."

Quote
What I've created is pretty gosh darn amazing considering the circumstances.  But it's not comparable to in person.   Yes, the learning goals are the same; yes, the content is similar; yes, the students are getting experience with experimental design.  But it's just not the same from the hand-on, interactive, peer-instruction level.

I know, even if the admins don't admit it yet, that our Fall classes will all be online.  Might be a few exceptions for some very small, upper division labs.  But we just don't have the space to keep folks at least 6 feet apart! I'll be spending Summer improving my big intro labs so they are a better experience.  And here I was sort of hoping that this was a one-off . . . .

But I think the question for a lot of us is, "After I've done all of this work to make reasonable virtual labs, are there at least a subset of students (such as non-majors) who might want to take this course that would get reasonable value from the virtual version?"

There might be a surprising number of cases where the answer is a qualified yes.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 13, 2020, 01:57:45 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 10:19:11 AM
[\

Any place that opens face to face and then has to revert to virtual deserves any and all the criticism they get.

I really disagree with this. I think it is a toxic sort of mentality, that isn't going to help you, or anyone else, navigate the next year or more. Certainty is something we aren't going to get. Everybody isn't going to stay home forever, things will restart, but it is going to be tenuous, and there may be a need to revert back to more extreme forms of distancing. That won't be a failure on anyone's part, as long as they have made contingency plans and acted responsibly.

The failure would be if reopening isn't carefully considered, or if it happens despite obvious signs that it wouldn't be a good idea.

I worry that if my school reopened, there wouldn't be clear plans for how to handle a surge in cases, either in the area or at the school. If they have a plan, and follow it, and that plan results in either a temporary or permanent suspension of in person classes before the risk gets too high, that would be an example of good leadership. It wouldn't be a failure just because they didn't have a crystal ball.


Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 06:16:24 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 13, 2020, 01:57:45 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 10:19:11 AM
[\

Any place that opens face to face and then has to revert to virtual deserves any and all the criticism they get.

I really disagree with this. I think it is a toxic sort of mentality, that isn't going to help you, or anyone else, navigate the next year or more. Certainty is something we aren't going to get. Everybody isn't going to stay home forever, things will restart, but it is going to be tenuous, and there may be a need to revert back to more extreme forms of distancing. That won't be a failure on anyone's part, as long as they have made contingency plans and acted responsibly.

To have any shred of credibility, they need to publicize the conditions under which they'd revert to virtual before the term starts. This time it was unforseeable, but in the Fall it is not only forseeable, but with significant probability. (For instance, here they announced Friday after classes were done that as of Monday we'd be virtual. Not even a day to get ready. This time it's understandable. In the Fall that sort of thing would be grossly incompetent.)


Quote
The failure would be if reopening isn't carefully considered, or if it happens despite obvious signs that it wouldn't be a good idea.

I worry that if my school reopened, there wouldn't be clear plans for how to handle a surge in cases, either in the area or at the school. If they have a plan, and follow it, and that plan results in either a temporary or permanent suspension of in person classes before the risk gets too high, that would be an example of good leadership. It wouldn't be a failure just because they didn't have a crystal ball.

They don't need a crystal ball; for months the prediction has been that a vaccine won't likely be available until at least mid to late 2021, and until then more outbreaks are a real threat. To open before then is a calculated risk. If it's carefully planned, then the plans should be made public as much as possible to avoid blindsiding everyone if the situation warrants another shutdown.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: sprout on May 13, 2020, 06:21:37 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 11:40:48 AM
But I think the question for a lot of us is, "After I've done all of this work to make reasonable virtual labs, are there at least a subset of students (such as non-majors) who might want to take this course that would get reasonable value from the virtual version?"

There might be a surprising number of cases where the answer is a qualified yes.

This has been a part of my thinking/planning. We have majors courses where the hands-on practical skills in lab really are a critical part of what students need to get out of the course, and will be expected to have when they transfer.  But in the non-majors introductory courses, the basic goals are to get students to learn how to think like a scientist and to understand some fundamental disciplinary concepts.  They can still get this if they're, for example, learning how to use a microscope in theory but not actually turning a physical knob. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on May 13, 2020, 09:06:04 PM
Quote from: sprout on May 13, 2020, 06:21:37 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 11:40:48 AM
But I think the question for a lot of us is, "After I've done all of this work to make reasonable virtual labs, are there at least a subset of students (such as non-majors) who might want to take this course that would get reasonable value from the virtual version?"

There might be a surprising number of cases where the answer is a qualified yes.

This has been a part of my thinking/planning. We have majors courses where the hands-on practical skills in lab really are a critical part of what students need to get out of the course, and will be expected to have when they transfer.  But in the non-majors introductory courses, the basic goals are to get students to learn how to think like a scientist and to understand some fundamental disciplinary concepts.  They can still get this if they're, for example, learning how to use a microscope in theory but not actually turning a physical knob.

I am still waiting to hear how my community college will conduct online courses in welding and auto repair.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on May 13, 2020, 09:22:09 PM
QuoteI am still waiting to hear how my community college will conduct online courses in welding and auto repair.

I saw an example on The Music Man!  They are going to use 'The Think Method'! 
It all worked out for everyone there! Especially Marian The Librarian!


It also worked out for Ron "Opie Cunningham" Howard!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: sprout on May 13, 2020, 10:15:49 PM
Quote from: Anselm on May 13, 2020, 09:06:04 PM
Quote from: sprout on May 13, 2020, 06:21:37 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 11:40:48 AM
But I think the question for a lot of us is, "After I've done all of this work to make reasonable virtual labs, are there at least a subset of students (such as non-majors) who might want to take this course that would get reasonable value from the virtual version?"

There might be a surprising number of cases where the answer is a qualified yes.

This has been a part of my thinking/planning. We have majors courses where the hands-on practical skills in lab really are a critical part of what students need to get out of the course, and will be expected to have when they transfer.  But in the non-majors introductory courses, the basic goals are to get students to learn how to think like a scientist and to understand some fundamental disciplinary concepts.  They can still get this if they're, for example, learning how to use a microscope in theory but not actually turning a physical knob.

I am still waiting to hear how my community college will conduct online courses in welding and auto repair.

Ugh, yeah.  We're looking to have limited return to in-person teaching for prof-tech programs for late spring and into summer.  They're higher up the list than science labs.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on May 13, 2020, 11:50:19 PM
Wouldn't welding gear offer pretty good coronavirus protection?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Aster on May 13, 2020, 11:53:16 PM
All of the For-Credit, clinicum and practicum based coursework at Big Urban College is being converted to remote for the Fall. But students will be keeping their assigned class meeting times for possible synchronous instruction. Actually, we *really* just kept the assigned class meeting times as we always use, and we reuse the same plan every semester, and nobody wanted to mess with it.

Our certification and licensure vo-tech programs will proceed with on-campus instruction as needed for professional certification requirements, same as sprout's. But not the For-Credit courses that teach similar critical professional training skillsets, noooooo we're just gonna slap that junk online. It's disappointing too see how poorly valued the professional training of For-Credit courses has recently been viewed. I feel that perhaps too much Ivory Tower Syndrome in the last decades has left the Academy rather complacent in either caring about or properly communicating the importance of clinicum and practicum based coursework. I wince every single time our state governor gets on the podium and flippantly states "Oh, we're just moving all instruction online" like classroom instruction is nothing more than a whimsical preference. I doubt he's ever taken an online course in his life, and his kids are like most upper class kids and schooled in nice fancy classroom-based schools and never touch an online anything except as a novelty or accessory.

I'm also disappointed and surprised that hands-on, professional skill training for 4-week certificate programs are viewed as mandatory, but hands-on, professional training for 4-year bachelor's degree programs are given a shrug and a Zoom account and told to Fake It Until You Make It. Maybe that demonstrated just how much greater political pull the wham-bam certificate programs have vs. the full college degrees. Or maybe it's just a heck of a lot easier for universities to articulate the short list of professional training that goes into a 4-week certificate course vs. the convoluted but order-of-magnitude greater professional training in a 4-year technical or applied sciences degree. Sort of like reading a sentence fragment vs. reading a paragraph.

Or, the vo-tech courses just happen to have a lot less students in them, and it's possible to actually bring them onto campus. So, it's a choice between giving nice things to some students, vs. not giving nice things to any students at all. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 14, 2020, 04:33:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 06:16:24 PM


To have any shred of credibility, they need to publicize the conditions under which they'd revert to virtual before the term starts. This time it was unforseeable, but in the Fall it is not only forseeable, but with significant probability. (For instance, here they announced Friday after classes were done that as of Monday we'd be virtual. Not even a day to get ready. This time it's understandable. In the Fall that sort of thing would be grossly incompetent.)



They don't need a crystal ball; for months the prediction has been that a vaccine won't likely be available until at least mid to late 2021, and until then more outbreaks are a real threat. To open before then is a calculated risk. If it's carefully planned, then the plans should be made public as much as possible to avoid blindsiding everyone if the situation warrants another shutdown.

Sure, I agree about that. The actual plans for classes my uni has seem ok in terms of allowing more physical distancing and protecting people at higher risk. The part that I haven't seen anything about is under what conditions we wouldn't  have in person classes. It seems possible that we may have to learn to think of this almost the way we think of weather. Classes could be suspended for a week, or two and then come back in some circumstances. That still would probably be on short notice, but the key would be clarity about the triggers for these things.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: polly_mer on May 14, 2020, 05:26:00 AM
Quote from: Caracal on May 14, 2020, 04:33:07 AM
It seems possible that we may have to learn to think of this almost the way we think of weather. Classes could be suspended for a week, or two and then come back in some circumstances. That still would probably be on short notice, but the key would be clarity about the triggers for these things.

This is actually one of the worst solutions, as has been discussed recently in a variety of higher ed places with experts who are doing the planning, running scenarios, and talking through the situation in consultation with other relevant experts.

insidehighered.com is free to all readers. (https://www.insidehighered.com)

The Chronicle of Higher Education often posts links to the free version of articles through its Twitter account (@chronicle). (https://twitter.com/chronicle)

Stop reading "the news" with its oversimplified versions of everything and go read something that has sufficient nuance to be worthwhile as background.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on May 14, 2020, 05:45:33 AM
Lab accommodations for visual impaired students might be a starting point for on line labs.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 14, 2020, 06:21:57 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on May 14, 2020, 05:26:00 AM
Quote from: Caracal on May 14, 2020, 04:33:07 AM
It seems possible that we may have to learn to think of this almost the way we think of weather. Classes could be suspended for a week, or two and then come back in some circumstances. That still would probably be on short notice, but the key would be clarity about the triggers for these things.

This is actually one of the worst solutions, as has been discussed recently in a variety of higher ed places with experts who are doing the planning, running scenarios, and talking through the situation in consultation with other relevant experts.

insidehighered.com is free to all readers. (https://www.insidehighered.com)

The Chronicle of Higher Education often posts links to the free version of articles through its Twitter account (@chronicle). (https://twitter.com/chronicle)

Stop reading "the news" with its oversimplified versions of everything and go read something that has sufficient nuance to be worthwhile as background.

This is an argument from authority. Why am I wrong that it might be necessary to think of disruptions in classes as a new normal? Everybody who you consider reputable who you've read in Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle thinks so! Since I don't think so, I must be an ignorant person.

Your commitment to logical fallacies of various sorts is what makes you such a toxic presence on this forum. It spins discussions off into totally unproductive avenues. I'm tempted to tell you that, in fact, I read all kinds of things, and that I often find Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle annoying and useless in various ways. But, then I'm the person telling everyone that, actually, I read the Atlantic and I find the Chronicle rather tiresome...Who gives a crap about that?

Of course what you aren't doing is actually engaging. Of course there's an argument to be made that disruptions would be too chaotic or too damaging. Why don't you tell us about it? If you've seen arguments like this you found compelling you could link to them. Then we could, you know, discuss them.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 14, 2020, 06:31:39 AM
Quote from: Caracal on May 14, 2020, 04:33:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 06:16:24 PM


To have any shred of credibility, they need to publicize the conditions under which they'd revert to virtual before the term starts. This time it was unforseeable, but in the Fall it is not only forseeable, but with significant probability. (For instance, here they announced Friday after classes were done that as of Monday we'd be virtual. Not even a day to get ready. This time it's understandable. In the Fall that sort of thing would be grossly incompetent.)



They don't need a crystal ball; for months the prediction has been that a vaccine won't likely be available until at least mid to late 2021, and until then more outbreaks are a real threat. To open before then is a calculated risk. If it's carefully planned, then the plans should be made public as much as possible to avoid blindsiding everyone if the situation warrants another shutdown.

Sure, I agree about that. The actual plans for classes my uni has seem ok in terms of allowing more physical distancing and protecting people at higher risk. The part that I haven't seen anything about is under what conditions we wouldn't  have in person classes. It seems possible that we may have to learn to think of this almost the way we think of weather. Classes could be suspended for a week, or two and then come back in some circumstances. That still would probably be on short notice, but the key would be clarity about the triggers for these things.

This would be a nightmare for labs. All of the labs build on one another, working up (often) to some sort of culminating activity or project. Some activities can be done virtually, others can't. If labs are going to be virtual, then they can't all be drop-in replacements for in-person labs. So you either need to design a complete sequence of virtual labs, with appropriate culminating activities, OR you need to have all the labs in-person with the in-person culminating activities.

Anyone who doesn't get that has no clue about how labs work.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 14, 2020, 07:22:03 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 14, 2020, 06:31:39 AM
Quote from: Caracal on May 14, 2020, 04:33:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 06:16:24 PM


To have any shred of credibility, they need to publicize the conditions under which they'd revert to virtual before the term starts. This time it was unforseeable, but in the Fall it is not only forseeable, but with significant probability. (For instance, here they announced Friday after classes were done that as of Monday we'd be virtual. Not even a day to get ready. This time it's understandable. In the Fall that sort of thing would be grossly incompetent.)



They don't need a crystal ball; for months the prediction has been that a vaccine won't likely be available until at least mid to late 2021, and until then more outbreaks are a real threat. To open before then is a calculated risk. If it's carefully planned, then the plans should be made public as much as possible to avoid blindsiding everyone if the situation warrants another shutdown.

Sure, I agree about that. The actual plans for classes my uni has seem ok in terms of allowing more physical distancing and protecting people at higher risk. The part that I haven't seen anything about is under what conditions we wouldn't  have in person classes. It seems possible that we may have to learn to think of this almost the way we think of weather. Classes could be suspended for a week, or two and then come back in some circumstances. That still would probably be on short notice, but the key would be clarity about the triggers for these things.

This would be a nightmare for labs. All of the labs build on one another, working up (often) to some sort of culminating activity or project. Some activities can be done virtually, others can't. If labs are going to be virtual, then they can't all be drop-in replacements for in-person labs. So you either need to design a complete sequence of virtual labs, with appropriate culminating activities, OR you need to have all the labs in-person with the in-person culminating activities.

Anyone who doesn't get that has no clue about how labs work.

I'm not in STEM, so that's true enough. Look, the disruptions could be a big problem. Obviously, that needs to be factored into any decisions about in person classes. The problem is that there's no way for anyone to have much confidence that this is going to go away anytime real soon. That doesn't mean that having fall classes is the right decision for any particular school. Maybe it is the wrong decision for all of them. However, I don't think it works to just say that we can't have classes if we don't know if there might be disruptions as a general principle.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on May 14, 2020, 09:05:45 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 14, 2020, 06:31:39 AM
Quote from: Caracal on May 14, 2020, 04:33:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 13, 2020, 06:16:24 PM


To have any shred of credibility, they need to publicize the conditions under which they'd revert to virtual before the term starts. This time it was unforseeable, but in the Fall it is not only forseeable, but with significant probability. (For instance, here they announced Friday after classes were done that as of Monday we'd be virtual. Not even a day to get ready. This time it's understandable. In the Fall that sort of thing would be grossly incompetent.)



They don't need a crystal ball; for months the prediction has been that a vaccine won't likely be available until at least mid to late 2021, and until then more outbreaks are a real threat. To open before then is a calculated risk. If it's carefully planned, then the plans should be made public as much as possible to avoid blindsiding everyone if the situation warrants another shutdown.

Sure, I agree about that. The actual plans for classes my uni has seem ok in terms of allowing more physical distancing and protecting people at higher risk. The part that I haven't seen anything about is under what conditions we wouldn't  have in person classes. It seems possible that we may have to learn to think of this almost the way we think of weather. Classes could be suspended for a week, or two and then come back in some circumstances. That still would probably be on short notice, but the key would be clarity about the triggers for these things.

This would be a nightmare for labs. All of the labs build on one another, working up (often) to some sort of culminating activity or project. Some activities can be done virtually, others can't. If labs are going to be virtual, then they can't all be drop-in replacements for in-person labs. So you either need to design a complete sequence of virtual labs, with appropriate culminating activities, OR you need to have all the labs in-person with the in-person culminating activities.

Anyone who doesn't get that has no clue about how labs work.

As someone who's entire job is based on designing labs, this 1000%.

Our administration is pushing the idea that classes need to have both an in-person and "remote" option.  Pair that with the ideas that "no student can be made to attend in-person", "no instructor can be made to teach in-person", and we "maintain social distancing in classrooms".  Our lab rooms normally have 24 students.  With social distancing of 6', we could fit at most 6 students.  Any of whom could decide on any given day that they do not feel safe going to class, including the TA.  Some of the labs that we teach in person CANNOT be taught online and I've had to swap them out for other activities (e.g. a diving physiology lab with students as the divers).  This is a logistical nightmare of EPIC proportions.  There is no way to do this that is not horrible disruptive at best, deadly at worst. 
I refuse to put my TAs in an unsafe situation by asking them to teach in-person.  I refuse to more than double their workload (and mine!) by asking them to teach 2 versions of their classes.
We will be teaching 100% online labs in Fall.  The Admin folks will realize it eventually. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Aster on May 14, 2020, 09:14:24 AM
We're in a temporary emergency. Colleges are operating in a temporary emergency. Everyone is extremely unhappy. It is a terrible environment for teaching. It is a terrible environment for learning.

Just do the best you can, under the circumstances. I'm planning on throwing out nearly all of the remote-converted curriculum I'm using now and will use in the Fall. I don't need it and I don't want it. It's a band-aid. It works well enough for the emergency.

But unless you actually are wanting to migrate your courses permanently into fully online instruction, don't work yourself into a pother trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Students are going to be highly stressed and pissed no matter how bad or how good your remote curriculum is.

Like Caracal said, colleges are not going to stop offering courses this Fall. While many are doing that for the summer, summers represent a tiny sliver of college revenues. The true meat and potatoes of college educations are the traditional academic terms.

Most clinicum and practicum courses are going to be an educational write-off. They'll be "offered", but in online format. Outside of certain academic disciplines that don't actually require experiential or hands-on training, only noob professors and unqualified administrators would attest that online-converted clinicum and practicum coursesare equivalent or even adequate. Most of the government regulators (e.g. Department of Education) and professional consultation groups (e.g. American Chemical Society) understand this, hence the waivers and "special circumstances" language they've inserted into their webpages.

Worrying about things that we cannot control well (or at all) might not be the best use of our time. Over the last week, I've come to the realization that my time is probably better spent thinking not for the summer or Fall, but for what we'll do *immediately after* the pandemic is over and students can return to campus and return to feelings of normalcy. There is going to be a crap ton of remediation needing temporary embedding into many, many courses. Almost all students will be less prepared in their degree plans and majors as a consequence of courses they've taken during the pandemic. While there is only so much that we and students can do for those pandemic courses, remediation afterwards may be the better way to deal with the situation.

Graduating seniors are still hozed, though.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 14, 2020, 10:26:35 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on May 14, 2020, 09:05:45 AM

As someone who's entire job is based on designing labs, this 1000%.

Nice to have a kindred spirit.

Quote
Our administration is pushing the idea that classes need to have both an in-person and "remote" option.  Pair that with the ideas that "no student can be made to attend in-person", "no instructor can be made to teach in-person", and we "maintain social distancing in classrooms".  Our lab rooms normally have 24 students.  With social distancing of 6', we could fit at most 6 students.

I'd say that's probably the typical scenario for most of the disciplines I'm familiar with; a lab with more than 40 or so would be VERY unusual. As far as distancing goes, there's not 6' between the rows of lab benches in most of my labs, (at least not when there are people AT the benches), so the situation is marginal at best.

Quote
Any of whom could decide on any given day that they do not feel safe going to class, including the TA.

That is insane.

Quote
Some of the labs that we teach in person CANNOT be taught online and I've had to swap them out for other activities (e.g. a diving physiology lab with students as the divers).  This is a logistical nightmare of EPIC proportions.  There is no way to do this that is not horrible disruptive at best, deadly at worst. 
I refuse to put my TAs in an unsafe situation by asking them to teach in-person.  I refuse to more than double their workload (and mine!) by asking them to teach 2 versions of their classes.
We will be teaching 100% online labs in Fall. The Admin folks will realize it eventually.

For my course with about 240 students, there are already 13 lab sections. If we cut those in half for distancing, then the labs for that single course become a kind of instructor purgatory where I'd be doomed for the entire term. Completely virtual is the only remotely workable option.

Looking at my existing learning objectives, I can achieve about 80% of them virtually, and there are a few things I can do virtually that I wouldn't do in person. (Like having them do things that are "wrong" and seeing the outcome.)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on May 14, 2020, 04:36:55 PM
The big question is, when will they tell the students that their large-enrollment classes (i.e. ALL of their lower level courses) will be online?  Registration starts on Monday. . . .
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: histchick on May 14, 2020, 05:37:16 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on May 13, 2020, 07:16:55 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 13, 2020, 06:55:44 AM
Suggests 70% of schools are planning to be in-person in the fall.

That many campuses fully in-person seems unlikely.  More likely to have at least 70% mostly online for fall.  "Mostly online" meaning a few exceptions for particular programs with restricted time and conditions on campus.

I applaud Cal State for making the decision public now so that 500,000 students, faculty, and staff can plan accordingly.

Many universities start up in late August.  Make the decision and let people know by June 15.

This.  I'm in a system that starts in mid-August.  The party line is that we're planning to be face-to-face in the fall.  Unofficially, many plans are being made to continue most classes online. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: PhilRunner on May 15, 2020, 04:17:54 AM
I keep waiting for someone to explain how students are supposed to occupy residence halls safely. I just read the newly released CDC guidelines for higher education, and they presume that there are no cases on campus at the start of opening in the fall. We're going to be bringing 20,000+ people into our community and campus from other areas. Are people building plans on the presumption that none of those 20,000 will bring the coronavirus onto campus? Will students be expected to isolate for 2 weeks in their dorms to set a baseline before resuming classes? Will students be expected to isolate with their roommates? Given how much interpersonal work is required, especially during the immediacy of crises that erupt, how can we ask students to be RAs under these circumstances? There are so many baseline questions that people aren't answering. All of the documents I've read fail to take on detailed analyses. This is maddening.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 15, 2020, 07:41:23 AM
Quote from: PhilRunner on May 15, 2020, 04:17:54 AM
I keep waiting for someone to explain how students are supposed to occupy residence halls safely. I just read the newly released CDC guidelines for higher education, and they presume that there are no cases on campus at the start of opening in the fall. We're going to be bringing 20,000+ people into our community and campus from other areas. Are people building plans on the presumption that none of those 20,000 will bring the coronavirus onto campus? Will students be expected to isolate for 2 weeks in their dorms to set a baseline before resuming classes? Will students be expected to isolate with their roommates? Given how much interpersonal work is required, especially during the immediacy of crises that erupt, how can we ask students to be RAs under these circumstances? There are so many baseline questions that people aren't answering. All of the documents I've read fail to take on detailed analyses. This is maddening.

I tried to look for the new guidance and all I found was an article that said they hadn't issued any new guidance yet for higher ed.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 15, 2020, 07:55:17 AM
Quote from: PhilRunner on May 15, 2020, 04:17:54 AM
I keep waiting for someone to explain how students are supposed to occupy residence halls safely. I just read the newly released CDC guidelines for higher education, and they presume that there are no cases on campus at the start of opening in the fall. We're going to be bringing 20,000+ people into our community and campus from other areas. Are people building plans on the presumption that none of those 20,000 will bring the coronavirus onto campus? Will students be expected to isolate for 2 weeks in their dorms to set a baseline before resuming classes? Will students be expected to isolate with their roommates?

Even these things would be basically pointless unless all of the students are essentially locked in for the entire term; no going off campus on weekends, including going home. And of course, students couldn't live off campus for the same reason.


Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 15, 2020, 08:30:06 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 15, 2020, 07:55:17 AM
Quote from: PhilRunner on May 15, 2020, 04:17:54 AM
I keep waiting for someone to explain how students are supposed to occupy residence halls safely. I just read the newly released CDC guidelines for higher education, and they presume that there are no cases on campus at the start of opening in the fall. We're going to be bringing 20,000+ people into our community and campus from other areas. Are people building plans on the presumption that none of those 20,000 will bring the coronavirus onto campus? Will students be expected to isolate for 2 weeks in their dorms to set a baseline before resuming classes? Will students be expected to isolate with their roommates?

Even these things would be basically pointless unless all of the students are essentially locked in for the entire term; no going off campus on weekends, including going home. And of course, students couldn't live off campus for the same reason.

I really don't think anybody is making plans on the basis that it would be possible to create some sort of student bubble. Or, at least, I haven't seen that anywhere. I think this hits on two points that seem to get lost in this whole discussion.

1. All or this is heavily dependent on the national and local situations and nobody actually knows what that will be in September. If cases aren't at a manageable level, most schools aren't going to have in person classes.

2. The goal isn't perfect safety, its risk reduction and management. If you're a big campus open in the fall, there will almost certainly be some COVID cases. The question is whether it is possible to make dorms and campus environments places where you don't have rapid spread. I don't have any insight on how possible that is, but that's the question. Of course, that is heavily connected to the success of contact tracing and modifications of behavior, in general.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on May 15, 2020, 09:34:38 AM
QuoteThe goal isn't perfect safety, its risk reduction and management.

From what I am hearing on MY campus, it is about Opening with Face to Face offerings in some form So That we can justify our tuition costs and generate revenues in the dorms and garage.

Yes, my dean included budget concerns that included justifications for opening campus (even in some hybrid half of the class meets on one day and the other half gets the same lecture on Wednesday.  The other part of our contact hours are done online).  The budget concerns included that there are bond issues that must be paid on several academic buildings (including ours), the dorm buildings and the parking garage.  If we dont have students in the dorms that debt has to be paid from general revenue rather than dorm related revenues.  Same problem with the garage.  No one comes to campus, no one buys a parking pass!

So... Safety seems to be at best a secondary if not a tertiary issue.  Further evidence is that IF faculty have conditions that would prevent them from returning to campus, they should begin gathering doctor's certification of their conditions to support ADA applications!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 15, 2020, 10:20:45 AM
Quote from: clean on May 15, 2020, 09:34:38 AM
QuoteThe goal isn't perfect safety, its risk reduction and management.

From what I am hearing on MY campus, it is about Opening with Face to Face offerings in some form So That we can justify our tuition costs and generate revenues in the dorms and garage.

Yes, my dean included budget concerns that included justifications for opening campus (even in some hybrid half of the class meets on one day and the other half gets the same lecture on Wednesday.  The other part of our contact hours are done online).  The budget concerns included that there are bond issues that must be paid on several academic buildings (including ours), the dorm buildings and the parking garage.  If we dont have students in the dorms that debt has to be paid from general revenue rather than dorm related revenues.  Same problem with the garage.  No one comes to campus, no one buys a parking pass!

So... Safety seems to be at best a secondary if not a tertiary issue.  Further evidence is that IF faculty have conditions that would prevent them from returning to campus, they should begin gathering doctor's certification of their conditions to support ADA applications!

I think that misses the point. Motivations aren't likely to matter that much. If students, as well as faculty, think that coming to campus is  likely to get them and people close to them sick, schools aren't going to be able to have in person classes. It won't matter how much the administration wants to sell parking passes, it isn't going to happen.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Wahoo Redux on May 15, 2020, 10:36:47 AM
The Atlantic just published "Colleges That Reopen Are Deluding Themselves." (//http://)

It doesn't say very much that's new, really, but it does point out the reality of student fees in college survival.

Rock and a hard place.

We are in one of those partially opened states.  My MIL's hairdresser had to open her business or miss making her house payment.  What else could she do?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: PhilRunner on May 15, 2020, 10:43:16 AM
Valid points. This CHE article asks important questions:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Case-Against-Reopening/248785?key=3nPk8ajeoU0Dy8ZoVQauE6CknsGdfLkzzAszZ4C9KD_9ieELrTXQPn5U4_AY_Bs7Y0JNSzh5MTV1cmZWWHduSUJRMWkxa2VHbGdRMXF1cURpbElwRVZ6TjI0RQ (https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Case-Against-Reopening/248785?key=3nPk8ajeoU0Dy8ZoVQauE6CknsGdfLkzzAszZ4C9KD_9ieELrTXQPn5U4_AY_Bs7Y0JNSzh5MTV1cmZWWHduSUJRMWkxa2VHbGdRMXF1cURpbElwRVZ6TjI0RQ)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 15, 2020, 10:59:10 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on May 15, 2020, 10:36:47 AM
The Atlantic just published "Colleges That Reopen Are Deluding Themselves." (//http://)

It doesn't say very much that's new, really, but it does point out the reality of student fees in college survival.

Rock and a hard place.

We are in one of those partially opened states.  My MIL's hairdresser had to open her business or miss making her house payment.  What else could she do?

There are parts of this I completely agree with. However, I think it is illustrative of the way in which the poisonous politics around reopening have pushed people into extreme positions. It is easy to say, no elevated level of risk is acceptable, but, the problem is that it isn't true. We have to accept some risk if we're going to mitigate the secondary effects. This isn't an argument for reopening colleges in the fall. If it can't be done without fueling outbreaks it shouldn't happen. However, there are real costs to online classes and those costs have to be balanced against the harm.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on May 15, 2020, 11:07:22 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on May 15, 2020, 10:36:47 AM
The Atlantic just published "Colleges That Reopen Are Deluding Themselves." (//http://)

Article sounds interesting, thanks.  Link doesn't work for me.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on May 15, 2020, 11:11:47 AM
Quote from: PhilRunner on May 15, 2020, 10:43:16 AM
Valid points. This CHE article asks important questions:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Case-Against-Reopening/248785?key=3nPk8ajeoU0Dy8ZoVQauE6CknsGdfLkzzAszZ4C9KD_9ieELrTXQPn5U4_AY_Bs7Y0JNSzh5MTV1cmZWWHduSUJRMWkxa2VHbGdRMXF1cURpbElwRVZ6TjI0RQ (https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Case-Against-Reopening/248785?key=3nPk8ajeoU0Dy8ZoVQauE6CknsGdfLkzzAszZ4C9KD_9ieELrTXQPn5U4_AY_Bs7Y0JNSzh5MTV1cmZWWHduSUJRMWkxa2VHbGdRMXF1cURpbElwRVZ6TjI0RQ)

Thanks.  Many important points.  Hope U decision makers are thinking carefully and methodically, not just monetarily.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on May 15, 2020, 11:19:40 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on May 15, 2020, 11:07:22 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on May 15, 2020, 10:36:47 AM
The Atlantic just published "Colleges That Reopen Are Deluding Themselves." (//http://)

Article sounds interesting, thanks.  Link doesn't work for me.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/colleges-that-reopen-are-making-a-big-mistake/611485/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on May 27, 2020, 10:33:03 AM
So, last month I participated in a community COVID-19 screening hosted by a local doctor's office.  Each participant was assured that insurance would cover it.  I got my throat swabbed and, as expected, received a negative result.

Now I find that I'm being billed well over two thousand dollars for that procedure!  I've had to spend part of the morning contacting the insurance office to try to see what's going on.  I've also called the doctor's office to ask whether any of the other two hundred-odd people who had this screening have gotten any strange bills.  They said that they'd had no other complaints.  Nor could they figure out how a $140 lab fee eligible for insurance turned into a bill of over two grand.

My guess is that somehow a bunch of tests from that day got rolled into one giant bill and randomly dropped on me.  I know that one way or another I'm not going to end up having to pay that ridiculous bill...but really!  I've had to waste time and energy dealing with this, and am not done yet.  This makes me not want to participate in any future community screenings.  I had no particular reason to suspect I had the virus.  I just joined in to try to be a good citizen by providing another data point.  And this is what happens!  Goof-ups like this are going to discourage the necessary business of community testing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on May 27, 2020, 10:45:54 AM
Quote from: apl68 on May 27, 2020, 10:33:03 AM
So, last month I participated in a community COVID-19 screening hosted by a local doctor's office.  Each participant was assured that insurance would cover it.  I got my throat swabbed and, as expected, received a negative result.

Now I find that I'm being billed well over two thousand dollars for that procedure!  I've had to spend part of the morning contacting the insurance office to try to see what's going on.  I've also called the doctor's office to ask whether any of the other two hundred-odd people who had this screening have gotten any strange bills.  They said that they'd had no other complaints.  Nor could they figure out how a $140 lab fee eligible for insurance turned into a bill of over two grand.

My guess is that somehow a bunch of tests from that day got rolled into one giant bill and randomly dropped on me.  I know that one way or another I'm not going to end up having to pay that ridiculous bill...but really!  I've had to waste time and energy dealing with this, and am not done yet.  This makes me not want to participate in any future community screenings.  I had no particular reason to suspect I had the virus.  I just joined in to try to be a good citizen by providing another data point.  And this is what happens!  Goof-ups like this are going to discourage the necessary business of community testing.

Yes, but you had the freedom to choose your local doctor's office, and to get tested. You can't put a price on that! Besides, it was just more efficient to bundle the bills together and roll a D20 to figure out who pays for it. Also: choices have consequences.

(/sarcasm, in case it wasn't clear! I'm so sorry you have to deal with that BS, especially since it's time that would be better spent on almost anything else. I'm constantly amazed by the time and energy my partner, who's American and not yet a permanent resident here, has to put into getting medical stuff reimbursed.)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 27, 2020, 12:15:03 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 27, 2020, 10:45:54 AM

(/sarcasm, in case it wasn't clear! I'm so sorry you have to deal with that BS, especially since it's time that would be better spent on almost anything else. I'm constantly amazed by the time and energy my partner, who's American and not yet a permanent resident here, has to put into getting medical stuff reimbursed.)

Yeah, usually the argument to have services delivered by the private sector instead of by the government is to reduce beaureacracy, but I never cease to be amazed at the indredible amount of red tape Americans put up with for a more "efficient" private system.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on May 27, 2020, 01:06:19 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 27, 2020, 12:15:03 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 27, 2020, 10:45:54 AM

(/sarcasm, in case it wasn't clear! I'm so sorry you have to deal with that BS, especially since it's time that would be better spent on almost anything else. I'm constantly amazed by the time and energy my partner, who's American and not yet a permanent resident here, has to put into getting medical stuff reimbursed.)

Yeah, usually the argument to have services delivered by the private sector instead of by the government is to reduce beaureacracy, but I never cease to be amazed at the indredible amount of red tape Americans put up with for a more "efficient" private system.

And that's going to be the death of our private healthcare.  Eventually their foolishness, inefficiency, and profiteering are going to turn the public so overwhelmingly against them that we'll end up with some kind of drastic government action.  I just hope that when it comes it will be well-considered action.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on May 27, 2020, 01:37:26 PM
Quote from: apl68 on May 27, 2020, 01:06:19 PM

And that's going to be the death of our private healthcare.  Eventually their foolishness, inefficiency, and profiteering are going to turn the public so overwhelmingly against them that we'll end up with some kind of drastic government action.  I just hope that when it comes it will be well-considered action.

If only that were true. But US health insurance has been a disgrace for at least 30 years, making people's lives miserable, forcing them to bankruptcy, and screwing them over. The US has been paying at least twice as much more per person on average for health care than any other country and often much more than that. The US has fairly low life expectancy compared to most of its peers.

There is a will to improve things, and Obamacare was able to draw on that. But the forces keeping the insurance companies in power are extremely powerful. Maybe there will be some change for the better, but it is often one step forward and two steps back.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on May 27, 2020, 02:02:31 PM
The institutionalisation of the elderly (and the Covid disaster) in old folks' homes seems to have happened everywhere, regardless of type of healthcare system. I'd like to see whether how we care for the elderly gets changed as a result of the pandemic.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 27, 2020, 02:08:37 PM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 27, 2020, 02:02:31 PM
The institutionalisation of the elderly (and the Covid disaster) in old folks' homes seems to have happened everywhere, regardless of type of healthcare system. I'd like to see whether how we care for the elderly gets changed as a result of the pandemic.

One interesting factor is how much, within a given gepgraphical region, the covid infection and death rates vary between different homes. For instance, here, half of the deaths have come from one single home. From what I see on the news, that seems common.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on May 27, 2020, 02:40:36 PM
Quote from: downer on May 27, 2020, 01:37:26 PM
The US has been paying at least twice as much more per person on average for health care than any other country and often much more than that.

IIRC, it's twice as much in public dollars. When you factor in private dollars, too, then it becomes much, much more. (This little tidbit is always left out of the discussion.)

Sorry. Back to your regularly-scheduled thread programming!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on May 27, 2020, 02:44:08 PM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 27, 2020, 02:02:31 PM
The institutionalisation of the elderly (and the Covid disaster) in old folks' homes seems to have happened everywhere, regardless of type of healthcare system. I'd like to see whether how we care for the elderly gets changed as a result of the pandemic.

There is a fair amount of variation. (ref (https://watermark.silverchair.com/26-suppl_2-3.pdf))  Iceland and Demmark put more of their elderly into residential and nursing homes, while Italy and Japan put less in.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on May 28, 2020, 07:22:47 AM
One of our local families has now gained a reputation as a nest of super-spreaders.  Apparently last week the family's graduating senior went with a bunch of friends on an overnight senior trip or house party.  Members of the family also attended a funeral.  As of Tuesday, the word was out that four members of the family had tested positive for COVID-19.  A host of people they had been in contact with were being advised to quarantine.  There's speculation that our county is about to experience a blow-up of cases.  The sociable family is being roundly condemned on social media for their criminal negligence.

And yet...as of this morning the state's CDC site didn't list any more confirmed cases for our county than the handful that were there before this all got started.  This has some distrusting the official numbers.  But our state's governor--unlike some I can think of--has never given the impression of trying to soft-pedal or dismiss the crisis.  He took action early, and has been faithfully giving daily updates of the epidemic's progress in the state.  Dr. Fauci has gone on record as commending his administration's response.  And we are one of the few states that has thus far seen no increase in overall deaths between now and this time last year.  All of which suggests that our state and local officials aren't covering up anything, or probably missing very much.

I now suspect that our alleged super-spreader family has been a victim of the social media rumor mill.  Innocent or not, it looks like their names will be mud for a while.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morden on May 28, 2020, 07:56:47 AM
QuoteOne interesting factor is how much, within a given gepgraphical region, the covid infection and death rates vary between different homes. For instance, here, half of the deaths have come from one single home. From what I see on the news, that seems common.
Yes! All care homes are vulnerable, but some care homes have done a much better job at controlling the spread and caring for their residents.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on May 28, 2020, 08:22:08 AM
Quote from: apl68 on May 28, 2020, 07:22:47 AM
I now suspect that our alleged super-spreader family has been a victim of the social media rumor mill.  Innocent or not, it looks like their names will be mud for a while.

This is my issue with the track and trace programs. People will point to South Korea or Singapore, saying "why can't we be like that?" with their app notifications of where infected people are etc: no apparent grasp that this would play out VERY DIFFERENTLY in other countries (vigilantism, harassment, etc).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on May 28, 2020, 12:30:14 PM
I just noticed that my brother posted a pic on FB showing his kids with other kids and families at a beach party. Why???
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on May 28, 2020, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: Morden on May 28, 2020, 07:56:47 AM
QuoteOne interesting factor is how much, within a given gepgraphical region, the covid infection and death rates vary between different homes. For instance, here, half of the deaths have come from one single home. From what I see on the news, that seems common.
Yes! All care homes are vulnerable, but some care homes have done a much better job at controlling the spread and caring for their residents.

I was talking with a friend yesterday whose parents are in assisted living.  They are required to stay in their unit 23 hours a day.  All meals are brought to them.  In homes with a common dining area, I can well imagine that the risk would be far higher. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morden on May 28, 2020, 03:12:52 PM
Quote
I was talking with a friend yesterday whose parents are in assisted living.  They are required to stay in their unit 23 hours a day.  All meals are brought to them.  In homes with a common dining area, I can well imagine that the risk would be far higher.
Some places seem to have good infectious disease protocols and others don't. My dad is in a long term care home; staff wear masks when interacting with the residents; staff work in the same unit all the time; there is an isolation ward for those who show symptoms; there is regular testing; they set up multiple smaller dining areas rather than gather everyone together, etc. We were just really lucky that he wound up there rather than in some of the other care homes in the city.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on May 29, 2020, 07:51:55 AM
It turns out that our reported local family of super-spreaders weren't just victims of the rumor mill.  They've publicly said that four members of the family have tested positive.  They got tested across the state line, which has created a bureaucratic delay in getting them added to our local positive test figures. 

These next couple of weeks are going to be interesting.  I know of at least one church that had planned to start having socially-distanced worship services this Sunday that has now postponed their plans.  Our own church had planned to reopen for on-site worship in two weeks, with two services to spread people out.  That may end up pushed back as well.

I guess this whole thing will have the effect of curing a lot of local complacency about the ongoing need for protective measures. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 29, 2020, 09:41:52 AM
Quote from: apl68 on May 29, 2020, 07:51:55 AM
It turns out that our reported local family of super-spreaders weren't just victims of the rumor mill.  T

Epidemiologists prefer to talk about "super spreading events," rather than describing people as "super spreaders." This is a pretty good illustration as to why. It is easy to blame the kid who went to the party and might have spread the virus, but he couldn't have had the party by himself. Seems even more troublesome when you're talking about a family. Imagine being the member of the family who told everyone this funeral gathering was a bad idea and didn't go. Now everybody is identifying you as a member of this "super spreading family" because the virus spread at an event you didn't attend.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on May 29, 2020, 09:46:55 AM
Quote from: Caracal on May 29, 2020, 09:41:52 AM
Quote from: apl68 on May 29, 2020, 07:51:55 AM
It turns out that our reported local family of super-spreaders weren't just victims of the rumor mill.  T

Epidemiologists prefer to talk about "super spreading events," rather than describing people as "super spreaders." This is a pretty good illustration as to why. It is easy to blame the kid who went to the party and might have spread the virus, but he couldn't have had the party by himself. Seems even more troublesome when you're talking about a family. Imagine being the member of the family who told everyone this funeral gathering was a bad idea and didn't go. Now everybody is identifying you as a member of this "super spreading family" because the virus spread at an event you didn't attend.

That's true.  For all I know, they were all asymptomatic and had no inkling that anybody in the family was sick until too late.  No more guilty of carelessness than anybody else, but had the misfortune to be "It."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on May 31, 2020, 05:14:07 AM
Quote from: apl68 on May 29, 2020, 07:51:55 AM
It turns out that our reported local family of super-spreaders weren't just victims of the rumor mill.  They've publicly said that four members of the family have tested positive.  They got tested across the state line, which has created a bureaucratic delay in getting them added to our local positive test figures. 

These next couple of weeks are going to be interesting.  I know of at least one church that had planned to start having socially-distanced worship services this Sunday that has now postponed their plans.  Our own church had planned to reopen for on-site worship in two weeks, with two services to spread people out.  That may end up pushed back as well.

I guess this whole thing will have the effect of curing a lot of local complacency about the ongoing need for protective measures.

Church across the road from me doesn't even pretend to social distance or wear masks. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on May 31, 2020, 11:17:44 AM
Quote from: apl68 on May 29, 2020, 09:46:55 AMFor all I know, they were all asymptomatic and had no inkling that anybody in the family was sick until too late.  No more guilty of carelessness than anybody else, but had the misfortune to be "It."
It's an unfortunate situation for that family -- both the illnesses and any unjustified harassment heaped on top of that -- but if there's a silver lining, perhaps it's that their experience may serve as a cautionary tale to others.  I hope it will be a reminder that asymptomatic people / people who don't know they're sick can spread the virus, and thus we should *all* assume we are potentially contagious and act accordingly (e.g. by distancing and wearing masks).

I am glad to hear that the churches near you are rethinking/postponing their in-person services in light of local transmission.  Disappointing from a craving-community standpoint, but sensible and loving from a "we are our brothers' keepers" and a community-is-more-than-physical standpoint.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 31, 2020, 12:12:05 PM
Quote from: namazu on May 31, 2020, 11:17:44 AM
Quote from: apl68 on May 29, 2020, 09:46:55 AMFor all I know, they were all asymptomatic and had no inkling that anybody in the family was sick until too late.  No more guilty of carelessness than anybody else, but had the misfortune to be "It."
It's an unfortunate situation for that family -- both the illnesses and any unjustified harassment heaped on top of that -- but if there's a silver lining, perhaps it's that their experience may serve as a cautionary tale to others.  I hope it will be a reminder that asymptomatic people / people who don't know they're sick can spread the virus, and thus we should *all* assume we are potentially contagious and act accordingly (e.g. by distancing and wearing masks).

I am glad to hear that the churches near you are rethinking/postponing their in-person services in light of local transmission.  Disappointing from a craving-community standpoint, but sensible and loving from a "we are our brothers' keepers" and a community-is-more-than-physical standpoint.

Yeah, I think one of the things that I find frustrating is the way many people have a hard time with the idea that the only way we can manage to have things be tolerable for the foreseeable future is if we accept that things aren't going to be able to go back to normal. People need social interaction, kids need to go to school, but this stuff is only going to be possible if people aren't doing things that cause unnecessary risk. There's a long history of outside church services. Done with reasonable distancing, that should be reasonably low risk. If teenagers need to go hang out outside there should usually be places they can do that without huge risks.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on June 01, 2020, 05:13:22 AM
I'm pretty tired of all the blather about coming together in worship.  I come from a looooong line of preachers, several of whom where circuit riders, on horses, who would preach maybe once a month at various churches, weather permitting.  If you need a building and other people to support your faith, your faith is pretty weak.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 01, 2020, 07:15:43 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 01, 2020, 05:13:22 AM
I'm pretty tired of all the blather about coming together in worship.  I come from a looooong line of preachers, several of whom where circuit riders, on horses, who would preach maybe once a month at various churches, weather permitting.  If you need a building and other people to support your faith, your faith is pretty weak.

Yeah, the camp meeting and the outdoor service were really huge parts of early evangelical worship styles. It made me think about whether it would be feasible to have outdoor classes sometimes. There's a giant almost entirely unused outdoor amphitheater tucked away in a weird corner of our campus. Alas, probably not feasible.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on June 01, 2020, 07:41:18 AM
Quote from: Caracal on June 01, 2020, 07:15:43 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 01, 2020, 05:13:22 AM
I'm pretty tired of all the blather about coming together in worship.  I come from a looooong line of preachers, several of whom where circuit riders, on horses, who would preach maybe once a month at various churches, weather permitting.  If you need a building and other people to support your faith, your faith is pretty weak.

Yeah, the camp meeting and the outdoor service were really huge parts of early evangelical worship styles. It made me think about whether it would be feasible to have outdoor classes sometimes. There's a giant almost entirely unused outdoor amphitheater tucked away in a weird corner of our campus. Alas, probably not feasible.

Well, our town, despite the wonderful weather yesterday, has mostly had rainy Sundays since this started.  It's put a damper (so to speak) on several churches' efforts to hold outdoor services.  The churches around here have been trying hard to work around the public health emergency with social distancing, outdoor services, and remote online services.  Also with keeping the local food pantry supplied, and keeping tabs on elderly members and others who might need help during this time.  But of course that's not as newsworthy as the occasional self-important rabble-rouser pastor in Louisiana or somewhere seeking confrontation over their right to do exactly as they please.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on June 03, 2020, 11:29:40 AM
News outlets, when responding global CV19 figures, often mention that the U.S has suffered the greatest number of CV-19 related deaths. Can it be said that the U.S. has effected the greatest number, and or per cent, of successful recoveries, numbers of people tested, and other intepolatons and extrapolations related  to CV-19 worldwide?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on June 03, 2020, 11:51:45 AM
Yes, although surely recoveries, although obviously more desirable than deaths, are not as good as not getting it, particularly as the long-term effects are unkown.

In other news, Sweden admits the Swedish strategy failed:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52903717 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52903717)

As neighbors are reopening their borders to each other, Sweden has effectively been quarantined by Denmark and Norway. Sweden has been significantly more affected relative to population than the US and far more than any other Scandinavian country.
After having plateaued for a while, global daily new cases seem to be rising again; deaths per day had been falling but the fall appears to be stopping.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on June 03, 2020, 12:37:21 PM
Quote from: Economizer on June 03, 2020, 11:29:40 AM
News outlets, when responding global CV19 figures, often mention that the U.S has suffered the greatest number of CV-19 related deaths. Can it be said that the U.S. has effected the greatest number, and or per cent, of successful recoveries, numbers of people tested, and other intepolatons and extrapolations related  to CV-19 worldwide?
In absolute numbers, yes.  Per capita?  No.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 03, 2020, 01:37:52 PM
Quote from: namazu on June 03, 2020, 12:37:21 PM
Quote from: Economizer on June 03, 2020, 11:29:40 AM
News outlets, when responding global CV19 figures, often mention that the U.S has suffered the greatest number of CV-19 related deaths. Can it be said that the U.S. has effected the greatest number, and or per cent, of successful recoveries, numbers of people tested, and other intepolatons and extrapolations related  to CV-19 worldwide?
In absolute numbers, yes.  Per capita?  No.

Focusing on absolute numbers doesn't make that much sense in general. The US is, thus far, the largest country that has had a really big outbreak. In terms of per capita deaths, the US is way below the worst hit European countries (The UK, Spain, Italy, Belgium, France) Some of the places that have been been able to control things are probably not reasonable comparisons to the US. New Zealand is two islands with about the population of the San Francisco metro area. There are some similar dynamics in some smaller European countries. Germany is in some ways probably the best example of a large country that has managed to contain the outbreak. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the US will end up having the most deaths in the long run. Things seem quite bad in Brazil.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on June 04, 2020, 07:55:08 AM
Definitely the US, relative to population, hasn't been nearly as badly hit as some parts of Europe.

Quote from: Caracal on June 03, 2020, 01:37:52 PM
Germany is in some ways probably the best example of a large country that has managed to contain the outbreak.

China, South Korea, Japan and Vietnam have much better numbers relative to population than Germany does. New Zeland does have a big advantage in being an island nation (as is Japan) but then again, so is the UK (corona reached even Shetland and the Falklands) and, well, let's just say that the UK is clearly as solid as a Northern Rock.

QuoteUnfortunately, I'm not sure the US will end up having the most deaths in the long run. Things seem quite bad in Brazil.

In addition, things are also deteriorating rapidly in the Indian subcontinent, so I agree, I don't think the US will forever be the country with the most deaths. Certainly not by realistic estimates, as Mexico and Brazil seem to be massively undercounting.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on June 04, 2020, 12:19:00 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 01, 2020, 05:13:22 AM
I'm pretty tired of all the blather about coming together in worship.  I come from a looooong line of preachers, several of whom where circuit riders, on horses, who would preach maybe once a month at various churches, weather permitting.  If you need a building and other people to support your faith, your faith is pretty weak.

The Bible clearly mandates corporate worship and specifically describes what ought to be done in a worship service. (Google the regulative principle of worship for more information.) That some Christians and Christian denominations disregard the Bible's teachings on this matter is beside the point.

I am not arguing (here) that temporarily closing churches was unnecessary. But I am arguing against the idea that "needing a building and other people" is a sign of weak faith. That's simple not true.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on June 04, 2020, 05:57:42 PM
The joy of the Lord is our strength.

What weakens faith is giving into despair and hopelessness. Dependence on anything other than God becomes idolatry. I don't need to judge the quality, consistency, or strength of another's faith--that's not my business, that's between them and God, unless they become harmful to others or themselves.

But claiming that an upheld (upside-down) Bible proves any attachment to faith, or that coming together into a building (when that action endangers oneself, those present, and all those they will interact with for the next foreseeable period of time) represents a higher order of creedal affirmation is misinformed.

God is love.

Enacted consideration of others is an important way of sharing and showing love, and creating a safe environment (by abstaining from causing anyone to enter an environment that has the greatest potential to become unsafe simply because of their presence) is a fuller expression of love than any other way I can think of.

There is in fact no direct NT commandment that requires communal worship...in fact, the number of times Jesus is depicted as going alone to pray alone uphold the validity of individual prayer and praise on their own terms. Gathering together can indeed be a blessing, but concrete material presence is not the only way--or the best way, in the present circumstances--to be together.

There are indeed OT commands to observe very specific moments, days, hours, and weeks of communal worship, in very specific tents or buildings, yes.

But one of the elements in the discussion between Peter and Paul in the council at Jerusalem was the disambiguation between Jewish practices that were still incumbent upon those baptised into the new faith--i.e., in Jesus as God's salvific representative on earth, and redemptive sacrifice thence ascended to Heaven--and those that were not.

Abstention from eating meat sacrificed to idols (so as not to injure others' consciences), and dismissal of the need for circumcision, as well as of the need for observing the ancient Hebraic dietary laws, were among the topics discussed. The need to meet in a specific place doesn't enter into it. Paul prays in prison. Philip witnesses to the eunuch in his chariot. Those liturgical moments were as valid as any that occurred in the church at Antioch, or Dura-Europas, or Rome. Inclusivity of forms and discernment of spirits were the point.

Many of Paul's, Peter's, John's, James' (and others') letters, as well, point out the new emphasis, not on the law, but on grace....and urged new churches to discern carefully among those coming to preach otherwise to them.

Putting someone "under the Law" to attend worship in a physical space when that attendance is so highly, potentially lethal to all, is blasphemous, as far as I'm concerned. It is in the same category as putting God to the test, which Jesus clearly points out to Satan is wrong, during the temptations following John's baptism of him.

Where communal worship threatens the lives of others, an insistence on its necessity (and guilting others into believing it to be necessary) is self-serving legalism (and more often tied to the money-grubbing desire to attract more contributions because in-person attendance is associated with same)*.

The Sabbath is made for humanity, we are not made for the Sabbath....and the value of remote worship is something I find myself attesting to every week: it now enables me to worship with a congregation I've missed for decades, because I don't live nearby anymore.

That alone has been blessing enough for me.

Morning prayer and evening praise hem the day around. Those can happen at home, in an armchair, on the back porch, alone or with a few others.

I can teach the history of liturgical architecture all the way through, but I don't venerate the buildings.   

God is not bound by an enclosed space, and while we definitely need other people of faith for encouragement, we do not need to enter such a space as te only means of discovering God's presence among us, or finding that consolation.


-=-=-=-=-
* Not in quite the same league as the "Gimme-for-Jesus" folks, but this was a practice even in the middle ages: the processions and chapels with named saints' worship arrangements funded the mills that ground the grain and drove the bread-making process that fed the clergy in the town I research, and probably many others.

And--while they would disclaim any politial relationship to Rome, there is also direct continuity between Tetzel's 1517 efforts to raise money for St. Peter's, and the televangelists who bankrupted my brother by promising him 'healing,' 'annointing,' and 'a special place in heaven' if he'd just make sizeable donations to fund their polyester leisure-suit wardrobe. (I once called all the ones I could find phone numbers for, and told them what they'd done. They agreed to remove him from their mailing lists, although I'm sure he just signed up for others.) - M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on June 04, 2020, 08:24:30 PM
Mamselle, what date (by which I mean what century) were the mills funded in this way? I have a professional reason for asking.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 05, 2020, 04:40:06 AM
Quote from: mamselle on June 04, 2020, 05:57:42 PM


Putting someone "under the Law" to attend worship in a physical space when that attendance is so highly, potentially lethal to all, is blasphemous, as far as I'm concerned. It is in the same category as putting God to the test, which Jesus clearly points out to Satan is wrong, during the temptations following John's baptism of him.

Where communal worship threatens the lives of others, an insistence on its necessity (and guilting others into believing it to be necessary) is self-serving legalism

There's a whole body of Jewish teaching that makes a very similar argument. Essentially, commandments are for life, so the duty to protect and preserve life supersedes all requirements. Normally, you shouldn't labor on the sabbath, which for Orthodox Jews involves very strict requirements, but if a life is in danger it should all be discarded. Some Rabbis argued that even considering the question of whether a life is truly in danger is a terrible mistake. If someone might be in danger, it is offensive to the very idea of biblical law to be standing around trying to decide how dire the situation is.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on June 05, 2020, 08:18:37 AM
Quote from: writingprof on June 04, 2020, 12:19:00 PM
I am arguing against the idea that "needing a building and other people" is a sign of weak faith. That's simple not true.

Yes, accusing people who are antsy to resume worship services of having "weak faith" is too harsh.  Those services are very important to a lot of people for a lot of different reasons. 

My impression is that the great majority of churches (certainly in our community and state, and I suspect elsewhere) have recognized the need for some disruption of their usual practices due to quarantine.  Now that we're months into the disruption, they're having to make tough decisions about whether, when, and how to reopen.  Whatever decisions they make, they have in most cases put a good deal of thought into them. 

Part of showing grace is not always assuming the worst motivations of those who make decisions different from the ones we ourselves would have made in the same situation.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on June 05, 2020, 09:58:31 AM
The only differences between gathering for a church service and gathering for a protest are that

1) the Left thinks that the protests are valid and that church is invalid, and
2) politicians are afraid of the mob but are not afraid of churchgoers.

Unless one is ready to condemn protesters for their failure to social-distance, one's condemnation of churchgoers is rank hypocrisy and anti-religious bigotry.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on June 05, 2020, 10:34:23 AM
Quote from: writingprof on June 05, 2020, 09:58:31 AM
The only differences between gathering for a church service and gathering for a protest are that

1) the Left thinks that the protests are valid and that church is invalid, and
2) politicians are afraid of the mob but are not afraid of churchgoers.

Unless one is ready to condemn protesters for their failure to social-distance, one's condemnation of churchgoers is rank hypocrisy and anti-religious bigotry.

Can't say as I agree with that.  That cohort is a large part of the Republican Party's base.  Currying favor with them is a large component of Trump's re-election strategy.  The little photo op this week apparently went over well with the more vocal churchgoing among us.

That said, their demand to hold services and ignore basic public health requirements appear to be as much based in politics as such faith principles they may espouse.

I'm just another failed Catholic.  But to the extent the Vatican says much I'm interested in, the Pope's expectation that people come back to Mass when it's safe, is both sane and respects people's wish for participating in a faith community.  A Muslim friend of mine travels extensively internationally.  She is deeply religious, wears hijab, eats halal, and prays five times a day as Islam expects.  She once to told me that Islam may expect prayer five times a day, but if circumstances make that unreasonable (e.g. being at 38,000 feet), it is acceptable not to pray at that time.

Religion and politics have long seemed to be inextricably intertwined. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on June 05, 2020, 10:48:21 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on June 04, 2020, 08:24:30 PM
Mamselle, what date (by which I mean what century) were the mills funded in this way? I have a professional reason for asking.

My work covered a study that ran from about the 12th c. to about the 14th. The actual time period may be longer on either side: those 2 centuries are just the period for which archives documents have been found in that place.

I can PM you with more details...

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on June 06, 2020, 09:30:12 AM
What is probably a chronic immune system response to Covid-19 infection:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/covid-19-coronavirus-longterm-symptoms-months/612679/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/covid-19-coronavirus-longterm-symptoms-months/612679/).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on June 06, 2020, 10:34:43 AM
Whoa.

Ties to fibro-myalgia-like issues are a serious worry.

Those can be lifelong.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on June 07, 2020, 06:11:12 AM
Quote from: writingprof on June 05, 2020, 09:58:31 AM
The only differences between gathering for a church service and gathering for a protest are that

1) the Left thinks that the protests are valid and that church is invalid, and
2) politicians are afraid of the mob but are not afraid of churchgoers.

Unless one is ready to condemn protesters for their failure to social-distance, one's condemnation of churchgoers is rank hypocrisy and anti-religious bigotry.

Did you notice that Trump held the Bible upside down and/or backwards? 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 07, 2020, 07:33:37 AM
Quote from: spork on June 06, 2020, 09:30:12 AM
What is probably a chronic immune system response to Covid-19 infection:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/covid-19-coronavirus-longterm-symptoms-months/612679/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/covid-19-coronavirus-longterm-symptoms-months/612679/).

I feel like this is the kind of stuff that calls for both actual studies and concern, but also a healthy amount of skepticism, not towards individuals, but about the larger population effects. A lot of people in the United States have gotten Covid. It doesn't seem particularly surprising that some relatively small number of them have had lingering symptoms. I've had symptoms linger for months from run of the mill colds and I'm a youngish, basically healthy person. (Actually, this happened to me a lot more when I was in my 20s and I now think I might have had some version of air pollution induced asmtha or something which improved pretty dramatically when I moved). People get bad colds all the time and it ends up leading to pneumonia, so it isn't surprising that this severe disease can linger in various ways. However, this doesn't mean there is really any reason to think that this is going to be a major population wide problem down the road. I suspect when you can do actual studies, you'll find that these sorts of long term symptoms are fairly uncommon .
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on June 07, 2020, 08:56:37 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 07, 2020, 06:11:12 AM
Quote from: writingprof on June 05, 2020, 09:58:31 AM
The only differences between gathering for a church service and gathering for a protest are that

1) the Left thinks that the protests are valid and that church is invalid, and
2) politicians are afraid of the mob but are not afraid of churchgoers.

Unless one is ready to condemn protesters for their failure to social-distance, one's condemnation of churchgoers is rank hypocrisy and anti-religious bigotry.

Did you notice that Trump held the Bible upside down and/or backwards?

What does that have to do with anything?  I don't like the President and didn't vote for him.  One's feelings about Trump are immaterial to the argument I'm making.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on June 08, 2020, 05:08:37 AM
Quote from: writingprof on June 07, 2020, 08:56:37 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 07, 2020, 06:11:12 AM
Quote from: writingprof on June 05, 2020, 09:58:31 AM
The only differences between gathering for a church service and gathering for a protest are that

1) the Left thinks that the protests are valid and that church is invalid, and
2) politicians are afraid of the mob but are not afraid of churchgoers.

Unless one is ready to condemn protesters for their failure to social-distance, one's condemnation of churchgoers is rank hypocrisy and anti-religious bigotry.

Did you notice that Trump held the Bible upside down and/or backwards?

What does that have to do with anything?  I don't like the President and didn't vote for him.  One's feelings about Trump are immaterial to the argument I'm making.

It's a simple question.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on June 08, 2020, 07:47:01 AM
New Zealand, with all of its special qualities, is "coronavirus-free" for now.  They hope to contain new cases.

"...no positive cases reported in the past 17 days. There has been no one receiving treatment in hospital for Covid-19 for the past 12 days and it has been 40 days since the last case of community transmission."  -- CNN

Congrats to New Zealand!

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on June 11, 2020, 01:19:56 PM
Had an appalling incident at work earlier today.  A patron deliberately leaned around the sneeze guards at the circulation desk and breathed in a staff member's face.  Two staff members witnessed it.  I'm getting in touch with authorities to determine what kind of response to make.  At minimum a serious reprimand.  He may be looking at being banned.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 11, 2020, 01:55:01 PM
Quote from: apl68 on June 11, 2020, 01:19:56 PM
Had an appalling incident at work earlier today.  A patron deliberately leaned around the sneeze guards at the circulation desk and breathed in a staff member's face.  Two staff members witnessed it.  I'm getting in touch with authorities to determine what kind of response to make.  At minimum a serious reprimand.  He may be looking at being banned.

Ugh. Was he trying to breathe in his face, or was he just totally oblivious?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on June 11, 2020, 02:45:58 PM
On my campus we have a formal "incident report form" and that can trigger an investigation and could lead to probation, suspension, expulsion, or (worse) 'reeducation' where they may be required to write a paper on the dangers of what they did wrong.  (They try to push the 'reform' rather than the 'punish' side of things. )  BUT I Would certainly file such a form in this case!!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on June 11, 2020, 02:57:57 PM
Quote from: Caracal on June 11, 2020, 01:55:01 PM
Quote from: apl68 on June 11, 2020, 01:19:56 PM
Had an appalling incident at work earlier today.  A patron deliberately leaned around the sneeze guards at the circulation desk and breathed in a staff member's face.  Two staff members witnessed it.  I'm getting in touch with authorities to determine what kind of response to make.  At minimum a serious reprimand.  He may be looking at being banned.

Ugh. Was he trying to breathe in his face, or was he just totally oblivious?

According to both witnesses, it was quite deliberate.  When he did so, he was heard by both saying (of the sneeze guard) "That didn't stop it, did it?"
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on June 11, 2020, 03:00:46 PM
Quote from: clean on June 11, 2020, 02:45:58 PM
On my campus we have a formal "incident report form" and that can trigger an investigation and could lead to probation, suspension, expulsion, or (worse) 'reeducation' where they may be required to write a paper on the dangers of what they did wrong.  (They try to push the 'reform' rather than the 'punish' side of things. )  BUT I Would certainly file such a form in this case!!

We've got incident report and patron ban procedures in place as well.  I just got an e-mail from the state level with the opinion that it was a bannable offense.  Waiting to see what the higher-ups here say--but I'm reasonably sure that our Board of Trustees will back me up.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on June 11, 2020, 03:21:22 PM
Quote from: apl68 on June 11, 2020, 03:00:46 PM
Quote from: clean on June 11, 2020, 02:45:58 PM
On my campus we have a formal "incident report form" and that can trigger an investigation and could lead to probation, suspension, expulsion, or (worse) 'reeducation' where they may be required to write a paper on the dangers of what they did wrong.  (They try to push the 'reform' rather than the 'punish' side of things. )  BUT I Would certainly file such a form in this case!!

We've got incident report and patron ban procedures in place as well.  I just got an e-mail from the state level with the opinion that it was a bannable offense.  Waiting to see what the higher-ups here say--but I'm reasonably sure that our Board of Trustees will back me up.

Not only bannable, but I'd think actionable if the employee were inclined to press charges.

Given that no-one has absolute assurance that they're not infected, given the layers of asymptomatic potential, and the high potential for infection from respiration by-products, that was an assault.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on June 12, 2020, 04:54:24 AM
Quote from: mamselle on June 11, 2020, 03:21:22 PM
Quote from: apl68 on June 11, 2020, 03:00:46 PM
Quote from: clean on June 11, 2020, 02:45:58 PM
On my campus we have a formal "incident report form" and that can trigger an investigation and could lead to probation, suspension, expulsion, or (worse) 'reeducation' where they may be required to write a paper on the dangers of what they did wrong.  (They try to push the 'reform' rather than the 'punish' side of things. )  BUT I Would certainly file such a form in this case!!

We've got incident report and patron ban procedures in place as well.  I just got an e-mail from the state level with the opinion that it was a bannable offense.  Waiting to see what the higher-ups here say--but I'm reasonably sure that our Board of Trustees will back me up.

Not only bannable, but I'd think actionable if the employee were inclined to press charges.

Given that no-one has absolute assurance that they're not infected, given the layers of asymptomatic potential, and the high potential for infection from respiration by-products, that was an assault.

M.

A form of assault?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 12, 2020, 06:16:50 AM
Quote from: mamselle on June 11, 2020, 03:21:22 PM
Quote from: apl68 on June 11, 2020, 03:00:46 PM
Quote from: clean on June 11, 2020, 02:45:58 PM
On my campus we have a formal "incident report form" and that can trigger an investigation and could lead to probation, suspension, expulsion, or (worse) 'reeducation' where they may be required to write a paper on the dangers of what they did wrong.  (They try to push the 'reform' rather than the 'punish' side of things. )  BUT I Would certainly file such a form in this case!!

We've got incident report and patron ban procedures in place as well.  I just got an e-mail from the state level with the opinion that it was a bannable offense.  Waiting to see what the higher-ups here say--but I'm reasonably sure that our Board of Trustees will back me up.

Not only bannable, but I'd think actionable if the employee were inclined to press charges.

Given that no-one has absolute assurance that they're not infected, given the layers of asymptomatic potential, and the high potential for infection from respiration by-products, that was an assault.

M.

It would probably be hard to make it stick given that the risk of infection from just someone breathing on you for a few seconds is probably very low. Even so, it certainly is grounds for banning someone. He's deliberately trying to scare an employee and make them uncomfortable. That's hostile and anti-social behavior.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on June 12, 2020, 06:40:40 AM
Sounds like good news about the two Missouri hair stylists with COVID who saw 140 clients.  Reportedly, no one was infected.  Hope scientists can learn from this case.  Masks seem to be a big factor in preventing infection. 

I don't understand why people want to politicize mask wearing and why people can't be courteous and just wear one.  Masks save lives.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/us/missouri-hairstylists-coronavirus-clients-trnd/index.html
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on June 12, 2020, 08:08:36 AM
Working on the ban notice today.  The employee involved took me aside today and said that she was worried about what this volatile patron might do if anybody approaches him about it.  I reassured her that this isn't going to be an issue.  Our ban notice procedure calls for having the police serve notice to the banned patron at home.  He'll be informed that if he comes here again after that, we'll be calling the police.  Should he come in today, before I can get the ban notice out, the staff has been instructed to just bear with him, unless he pulls something else that goes over the line.

It may not look like it to the staff, but I've been putting in a lot of work yesterday and today to prepare the ban hammer to come down.  I'm confident that the city and Board of Trustees will back me up, but I've got i's to dot and t's to cross to make sure it's all done in accordance with procedure.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on June 12, 2020, 08:38:35 AM
Quote from: apl68 on June 12, 2020, 08:08:36 AM
Working on the ban notice today.  The employee involved took me aside today and said that she was worried about what this volatile patron might do if anybody approaches him about it.  I reassured her that this isn't going to be an issue.  Our ban notice procedure calls for having the police serve notice to the banned patron at home.  He'll be informed that if he comes here again after that, we'll be calling the police.  Should he come in today, before I can get the ban notice out, the staff has been instructed to just bear with him, unless he pulls something else that goes over the line.

It may not look like it to the staff, but I've been putting in a lot of work yesterday and today to prepare the ban hammer to come down.  I'm confident that the city and Board of Trustees will back me up, but I've got i's to dot and t's to cross to make sure it's all done in accordance with procedure.

You are doing something important -- protecting your colleagues and the public.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on June 12, 2020, 11:01:35 AM
Yes.

Be sure to reward yourself after all the eye-crossing and t-dotting is done.

That's a serious sevice to your community you're performing.

I've wondered lately if some of the resistance-polticization of mask-wearing is a subtly anti-Asian thing, too.

We get a lot of Asian visitors who have worn masks for years, and I know I've overheard them being derided for it in casual, public-transit-like settings in the past.

Might not be related at all. But it did occur to me.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on June 13, 2020, 08:12:32 AM
Getting the ban notice done ate most of my day yesterday!  Twice before when we've banned patrons we had the municipal police deliver the notice.  This avoids the need to tell the patron in person and create a scene, avoids the risk of a mailed notice being lost or going unread, and puts the patron under the ban on notice that we are very, very serious (And that he's now on law enforcement's radar). 

This time around the patron lived in the unincorporated "suburbs" beyond the city limits.  The municipal police informed me that this put the patron under the county sheriff's jurisdiction.  So, I contacted the sheriff's office.  After being handed off to four different people there in a row, the senior person present finally told me that they could not serve a notice unless it had been issued by the court.  They said I would need to get an order of exclusion from the circuit court's office before they could serve anything to anybody.  I called the circuit court office and was told that they could only issue such orders in domestic violence cases.  I would have to go up a level to the district court. 

At this point I realized that it would take an act of Congress to get this exclusion order.  Which is not what I really wanted in the first place.  I spent a while pondering my options.  None of them looked good.  Finally I called the municipal police again and asked to speak to the chief, with whom I'm acquainted because we're fellow city department heads.  He wasn't in, but they could have him call me back.  We finally got in touch sometime after lunch.  He heard me out as I explained what I was trying to do and why.  He said he'd contact the sheriff's department and see what he could do. 

Less than an hour later, a uniformed officer came to the library and took the ban order.  Not long afterward, one of the staff got a call from the patron.  He'd received it and was incredulous over being banned for breathing on somebody around a sneeze guard.  But he didn't cuss, protest, threaten, etc. 

All the delays meant that my e-mail report to the Board of Trustees didn't go out until nearly closing time.  So I haven't yet received their feedback.  I anticipate no problems there.  They've been good to back me in the past.  I'm now here on Saturday morning to try to finish up an unrelated project that I'd hoped to finish yesterday before getting distracted by this business. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on June 13, 2020, 09:33:20 AM
Glad you found a functional workaround...and had the appropriate good connections to get the ban put in place.

Maybe this will be a stepping-stone towards maturity in this patron's life-path.....(ahem).

I hope you get everything else done, and that you order yourself a nice, delivered lunch or dinner to a) save extra time and effort making a meal, and b) reward yourself for following through on such a difficult task.

Kudos.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 13, 2020, 12:20:10 PM
So, our neighbor is having a party with a lot of kids and a bouncy house. I'm not sure what to think.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Bonnie on June 13, 2020, 04:14:43 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 13, 2020, 12:20:10 PM
So, our neighbor is having a party with a lot of kids and a bouncy house. I'm not sure what to think.

Bouncy houses really seem to be Phase Not There Yet. Enclosed small ish. Laughter and yelling and maybe crying. And snot, IIRC.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on June 13, 2020, 06:08:53 PM
I just had 2 Covid-19 tests this past week, one before entering the hospital and then another before having a procedure done.  The tests are not fun. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on June 15, 2020, 08:30:48 AM
Yesterday our church resumed face-to-face worship services.  They put a full range of precautions in place.  We all wore masks, were seated apart by family groups (which put me sitting by myself), and had no choir up front.  We had two separate services to accommodate all the social distancing.  The services were also live-streamed for those still at home.

Awkward as it all was, it was so nice to be back around people again, instead of watching the service on my office computer!  The pastor was back in good form, with the interactive component his messages usually have. 

I also got to talk afterward with a couple I know who had been planning to go into the mission field this summer.  Those plans have been ruined, like so many others.  They're wondering what to do next.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on June 16, 2020, 05:35:46 AM
Quote from: apl68 on June 15, 2020, 08:30:48 AM
Yesterday our church resumed face-to-face worship services.  They put a full range of precautions in place.  We all wore masks, were seated apart by family groups (which put me sitting by myself), and had no choir up front.  We had two separate services to accommodate all the social distancing.  The services were also live-streamed for those still at home.

Awkward as it all was, it was so nice to be back around people again, instead of watching the service on my office computer!  The pastor was back in good form, with the interactive component his messages usually have. 

I also got to talk afterward with a couple I know who had been planning to go into the mission field this summer.  Those plans have been ruined, like so many others.  They're wondering what to do next.

Unfortunately, many churches in red country still think mountains and Jesus are sufficient protection:  https://news.yahoo.com/west-virginia-sees-coronavirus-outbreaks-in-churches-200854506.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=fb
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: sprout on June 16, 2020, 08:37:44 AM
Quote from: Anselm on June 13, 2020, 06:08:53 PM
I just had 2 Covid-19 tests this past week, one before entering the hospital and then another before having a procedure done.  The tests are not fun.

Agreed.  When I had one a couple months ago, I was told 'if your eye doesn't water, I'm not in the right spot!'  I think he was mostly not joking.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Wahoo Redux on June 16, 2020, 12:11:30 PM
Hey biologists and zoologists, I think Fauci said that corona viruses tend not (or are less likely) to mutate.  Am I understanding that correctly? 

Is the virus we see now the virus we are going to have to deal with from now on?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on June 16, 2020, 12:21:36 PM
Umm....hmmmm....I thought I read the opposite, that they had mutated several times and that was part of the reason they became so peripatetic: they could hitch-hike on different species because of sequence changes.

Being recombinant, I think that makes them more agile in that regard, but I've only worked for biochemists, I not are one.

This is one of the articles that made me think that.

   https://www.healthline.com/health-news/what-to-know-about-mutation-and-covid-19#Just-how-long-will-immunity-last?

As the title suggests, it may be harder to build an efficacious vaccine against mutation-prone viruses.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on June 16, 2020, 12:41:57 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on June 16, 2020, 12:11:30 PM
Hey biologists and zoologists, I think Fauci said that corona viruses tend not (or are less likely) to mutate.  Am I understanding that correctly? 
Is the virus we see now the virus we are going to have to deal with from now on?
Coronaviruses tend to be more stable than, say, flu viruses, but they are not static, and they are subject to selective pressures.  (https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/25/820998549/the-coronavirus-is-mutating-but-that-may-not-be-a-problem-for-humans)

There have been some mutations identified to date, some of which seem to have no/limited functional effect, and some of which may have resulted in changes in transmissibility (e.g. of the European strains that came to dominate in much of the U.S., vs. the earlier strains circulating in China) (https://www.scripps.edu/news-and-events/press-room/2020/20200612-choe-farzan-coronavirus-spike-mutation.html).

The larger the number of infections, the larger the number of times the virus replicates, and the more opportunities there are for the virus to mutate. 

It's not clear at this point whether/to what extent these mutations may affect the efficacy of potential vaccines or their utility over longer periods of time. 

Most vaccines under development are targeting the spike protein on the surface of the virus shell. You can think of the spike protein as a kind of flag that the immune system can recognize and target.  If mutations make this flag a different shape or color or size, then it may be more difficult for an immune system trained to recognize the original version of the flag to recognize the new/mutated version and mount an effective immune response.  So the implications of mutations for vaccines depend on just how any given mutation changes the relevant immune system targets.  They may be deal-breakers, or they may not be.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on June 16, 2020, 01:46:33 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on June 16, 2020, 12:11:30 PM
Hey biologists and zoologists, I think Fauci said that corona viruses tend not (or are less likely) to mutate.  Am I understanding that correctly? 

Is the virus we see now the virus we are going to have to deal with from now on?

Well, that is the $10 billion question.
All viruses mutate.  The SARS-CoV-2 virus has the ability to "proofread" and correct mistakes made while copying it's genome so it is less prone to mutation that other RNA viruses.
Whether or not the mutations will alter the virus' ability to infect human cells or replicate is what we'll have to wait and find out.
Or whether it's possible for the virus to mutate in a way that would make a particular vaccine less effective.  That's why most of the vaccines being developed are designed against what we think are the most-conserved & important (i.e. least likely to be changed) parts of the virus.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on June 16, 2020, 02:42:21 PM
I recently added access to netflix. There is a documentary series called Pandemic. I have only seen the first 4 episodes, so I dont know what the conclusions are, but one of the early subjects of the series is a company that is fighting the flu by attempting to find something that is unchanging in the virus.  So far (as I ve watched) they can find immunity to most flue strains, but it requires that one takes a series of Seven! Shots! 

Personally, i would be glad to take seven shots to have nearly full immunity to the flu, but I guess that I may not be typical, or that the cost of 7 different shots would be uneconomical.

Perhaps there is something in CV19  or with its cousins that is common that could be found that would work for most of the possible mutations!
Of course IF/when that 'one factor' DID change, the usefulness of the shot would be lost or at least greatly reduced.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 16, 2020, 05:06:31 PM
Just an update from a discussion long, long ago...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0962-9

Seems like pretty strong evidence that kids actually do get infected at much lower rates.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 16, 2020, 05:20:01 PM
Quote from: clean on June 16, 2020, 02:42:21 PM

Perhaps there is something in CV19  or with its cousins that is common that could be found that would work for most of the possible mutations!
Of course IF/when that 'one factor' DID change, the usefulness of the shot would be lost or at least greatly reduced.

Not a scientist, but the people who work on this have argued that COVID mutations aren't significant at this point and probably don't change the behavior of the virus. This is a good laypersons summary. https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-mutations-strains-scientists-track-genetics-2020-4
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on June 17, 2020, 12:44:26 AM
Quote from: sprout on June 16, 2020, 08:37:44 AM
Quote from: Anselm on June 13, 2020, 06:08:53 PM
I just had 2 Covid-19 tests this past week, one before entering the hospital and then another before having a procedure done.  The tests are not fun.

Agreed.  When I had one a couple months ago, I was told 'if your eye doesn't water, I'm not in the right spot!'  I think he was mostly not joking.

I had a test yesterday and it was fine. Uncomfortable but not painful. And I received the negative result by SMS about 15 hours later. ☺️
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on June 17, 2020, 04:06:21 AM
Has anyone here wondered about the safety of drive-by testing? I am not sick and have no reason to go get myself tested, but if I were feeling sick, I know I would be hesitant. It just seems like the perfect way to pick up Covid if you don't already have it. I know they take precautions, but they don't change their protective gear after after single person, so it stands to reason that if they did encounter someone with Covid, the exterior of their PPE could be shedding the virus. And, of course, even if you are in your car, they still need access to your face.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 17, 2020, 04:14:48 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on June 17, 2020, 04:06:21 AM
Has anyone here wondered about the safety of drive-by testing? I am not sick and have no reason to go get myself tested, but if I were feeling sick, I know I would be hesitant. It just seems like the perfect way to pick up Covid if you don't already have it. I know they take precautions, but they don't change their protective gear after after single person, so it stands to reason that if they did encounter someone with Covid, the exterior of their PPE could be shedding the virus. And, of course, even if you are in your car, they still need access to your face.

Again, not at all an expert, but objects don't "shed" virus. It doesn't alight on something and then go airborne again. The other thing is that the dose matters. If you're imagining some scenario where a tester gets virus particles on their mask and then the wind blows or whatever, by the time all that happened you would be talking about amounts way too small to make you sick.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Bonnie on June 17, 2020, 05:09:13 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on June 17, 2020, 04:06:21 AM
Has anyone here wondered about the safety of drive-by testing? I am not sick and have no reason to go get myself tested, but if I were feeling sick, I know I would be hesitant. It just seems like the perfect way to pick up Covid if you don't already have it. I know they take precautions, but they don't change their protective gear after after single person, so it stands to reason that if they did encounter someone with Covid, the exterior of their PPE could be shedding the virus. And, of course, even if you are in your car, they still need access to your face.

I think it is a very, very low risk situation. I don't think there is evidence that the PPE (or other objects) sheds the virus. And even if the person in the car in front of you shed a bit of virus in the air as they tested, it's not going to be enough to get you sick when you pull up in the space. The amount of time you are there is not significant. (Risk is about viral load in the air plus distance plus TIME). And at least here, they don't need access to your face. They hand you the swab (with their gloved hands, gloves that are changed after each test), you hand it back.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on June 17, 2020, 06:10:49 AM
Quote from: Bonnie on June 17, 2020, 05:09:13 AM
They hand you the swab (with their gloved hands, gloves that are changed after each test), you hand it back.
That seems like an awful way to do it. A proper sample requires you to stick that swab WAY up your nose and I can't imagine doing that to myself. If this is becoming widespread, we could see a lower rate of positive test results simply because of improperly taken swabs.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on June 17, 2020, 06:19:13 AM
Quote from: pigou on June 17, 2020, 06:10:49 AM
Quote from: Bonnie on June 17, 2020, 05:09:13 AM
They hand you the swab (with their gloved hands, gloves that are changed after each test), you hand it back.
That seems like an awful way to do it. A proper sample requires you to stick that swab WAY up your nose and I can't imagine doing that to myself. If this is becoming widespread, we could see a lower rate of positive test results simply because of improperly taken swabs.

that's my concern too, about self-admin or mail-order tests. No way ANYONE is jamming that swab all the way back on themselves.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Bonnie on June 17, 2020, 07:02:40 AM
Quote from: pigou on June 17, 2020, 06:10:49 AM
Quote from: Bonnie on June 17, 2020, 05:09:13 AM
They hand you the swab (with their gloved hands, gloves that are changed after each test), you hand it back.
That seems like an awful way to do it. A proper sample requires you to stick that swab WAY up your nose and I can't imagine doing that to myself. If this is becoming widespread, we could see a lower rate of positive test results simply because of improperly taken swabs.

Self-administered tests have been happening for over two months now. And yes they are widespread. The accuracy is not as high as the deep nasal medical professional administered test, but is considered to have a high enough accuracy to be useful. You get some coaching. A friend of mine had the technician tell her to insert it again because she didn't look at all uncomfortable.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on June 17, 2020, 07:08:58 PM
Quote from: Caracal on June 17, 2020, 04:14:48 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on June 17, 2020, 04:06:21 AM
Has anyone here wondered about the safety of drive-by testing? I am not sick and have no reason to go get myself tested, but if I were feeling sick, I know I would be hesitant. It just seems like the perfect way to pick up Covid if you don't already have it. I know they take precautions, but they don't change their protective gear after after single person, so it stands to reason that if they did encounter someone with Covid, the exterior of their PPE could be shedding the virus. And, of course, even if you are in your car, they still need access to your face.

Again, not at all an expert, but objects don't "shed" virus. It doesn't alight on something and then go airborne again. The other thing is that the dose matters. If you're imagining some scenario where a tester gets virus particles on their mask and then the wind blows or whatever, by the time all that happened you would be talking about amounts way too small to make you sick.

Great. Thanks for the explanation!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on June 25, 2020, 03:59:49 PM
Wednesday June 17, county reports a total count of 420 Covid Cases (since the start)

Today, less than 10 days later we are up to 1287 total cases!!!  We have tripled the number of cases in 8 days!!  WTF!!

Tomorrow my county will require all customers and staff to wear masks in 'big box stores'. 

Somehow I dont think that is enough! 

I went to the grocery store today to top off. I have more than enough things to keep me for more than a week.  (I hope I can eat the fresh stuff before it spoils).  Most people were wearing masks, but too many were not wearing them correctly.  Too many uncovered noses and What The Hell is with Pulling Down the Mask when you talk!!!  Idiots!!

With July 4 in a week or so, I wonder if the spikes will continue?

I wonder if this will change my university's plans to reopen with face to face classes at all costs!?

Are things getting better, worse, or staying stable in Your neighborhood?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on June 25, 2020, 04:50:48 PM
Dunno.

I only go out once every three weeks for groceries, early in the AM, and once a week to mail checks to my bank and make a withdrawal.

I am masked and gloved when I go out and I only go out for 1 hour or so at the most.

I hear and see things online.

But I don't know what people in my neighborhood are doing because I barely see them.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on June 25, 2020, 11:08:32 PM
I get grocery delivery and I have not left the house to go to a store or see other people since early March.  I've been out for solo walks and for a few errands that don't involve other people, like putting my vote-by-mail ballot in the mailbox.

But among my friends, I see I am unusual. I am nonplussed at so many people going out for inessential reasons. Clearly they estimate the risks different than I do. I'm in several vulnerable categories, so my strategy for surviving is "Don't get the virus," rather than "Hope for the best."  I wouldn't set foot in a grocery store right now — well, for anything. Delivery is easy, and I can pay the delivery people a big tip because I'm certainly not spending money on anything else.  I also signed up for a nice weekly delivered farm share.  People say, "You can't live in fear." Well, I'm not living in fear, precisely because I'm staying home.

Our area is low in cases, but we went into phase 1 of opening up a couple of weeks ago. Sure enough there came a surge of cases. A few people having parties, and then the people infected at the parties being out and about (until they fell sick), was enough to get it going.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on June 26, 2020, 04:07:33 AM
The question of risk estimation has been interesting. I'm on the east coast. I've been working on keeping fit and avoiding depression. Having a strong immune system has been a priority for me. I live alone. It was clear to me from early on that there was no way I was going to just never see anyone for months. That would clearly be bad for my health.

I've seen quite a few people during the pandemic. Mostly it has been outside, and when in cars, we have mostly either worn masks or had the windows open. But I've also had some people visit my apartment. We have all been in low risk categories.

I've been in NYC, had a drink outside at a bar and I've been on trains.

I've been somewhat skeptical about some of the precautions some people take, like not touching incoming packages for several days.

At no point has it felt risky.

On the other hand, you are going to have to drag me kicking and screaming into a badly ventilated classroom of undergraduates for 90 minutes.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on June 26, 2020, 06:16:13 AM
Quote from: clean on June 25, 2020, 03:59:49 PM
Wednesday June 17, county reports a total count of 420 Covid Cases (since the start)

Today, less than 10 days later we are up to 1287 total cases!!!  We have tripled the number of cases in 8 days!!  WTF!!

Tomorrow my county will require all customers and staff to wear masks in 'big box stores'. 

Somehow I dont think that is enough! 

I went to the grocery store today to top off. I have more than enough things to keep me for more than a week.  (I hope I can eat the fresh stuff before it spoils).  Most people were wearing masks, but too many were not wearing them correctly.  Too many uncovered noses and What The Hell is with Pulling Down the Mask when you talk!!!  Idiots!!

With July 4 in a week or so, I wonder if the spikes will continue?

I wonder if this will change my university's plans to reopen with face to face classes at all costs!?

Are things getting better, worse, or staying stable in Your neighborhood?

Do we live in the same county, clean?

Back in May, new daily cases in our county were in the low single digits. Then the numbers started creeping up a couple of weeks ago. Now we are seeing about 150 new cases per day. So, yes, a huge spike. By far, most of the new cases are found in 18 to 21 year olds. Actually, on our county dashboard, the age range from 15 to 24 has the spike, but a friend of mine is in public health and is working with the Covid raw data. She told me last night about the spike being concentrated specifically in the 18-21 y. o. range. Apparently, there is a big hot spot in some apartment complexes just off campus.

Mask wearing is officially encouraged, but not required. However, even if it were required, I just don't think the young'uns are going to be collectively responsible enough to either a) not party or b) party while socially distancing and wearing masks (correctly). Actually, I'm not sure which of the two options is the most ludicrous. My DH agrees that Fall will probably be a disaster, but incredibly, there are some faculty who are naïve enough to believe that the students will be "behave themselves" in the fall (in spite of the current evidence).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on June 26, 2020, 06:25:08 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on June 26, 2020, 06:16:13 AM

Back in May, new daily cases in our county were in the low single digits. Then the numbers started creeping up a couple of weeks ago. Now we are seeing about 150 new cases per day. So, yes, a huge spike. By far, most of the new cases are found in 18 to 21 year olds. Actually, on our county dashboard, the age range from 15 to 24 has the spike, but a friend of mine is in public health and is working with the Covid raw data. She told me last night about the spike being concentrated specifically in the 18-21 y. o. range. Apparently, there is a big hot spot in some apartment complexes just off campus.

Mask wearing is officially encouraged, but not required. However, even if it were required, I just don't think the young'uns are going to be collectively responsible enough to either a) not party or b) party while socially distancing and wearing masks (correctly). Actually, I'm not sure which of the two options is the most ludicrous. My DH agrees that Fall will probably be a disaster, but incredibly, there are some faculty who are naïve enough to believe that the students will be "behave themselves" in the fall (in spite of the current evidence).

The morbid and very sad question, is how many deaths will have to happen among the 18-21 group (i.e. students) before students, institutions, and parents realize that the whole thing was inevitable, to anyone willing to see it?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on June 26, 2020, 06:40:44 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 26, 2020, 06:25:08 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on June 26, 2020, 06:16:13 AM

Back in May, new daily cases in our county were in the low single digits. Then the numbers started creeping up a couple of weeks ago. Now we are seeing about 150 new cases per day. So, yes, a huge spike. By far, most of the new cases are found in 18 to 21 year olds. Actually, on our county dashboard, the age range from 15 to 24 has the spike, but a friend of mine is in public health and is working with the Covid raw data. She told me last night about the spike being concentrated specifically in the 18-21 y. o. range. Apparently, there is a big hot spot in some apartment complexes just off campus.

Mask wearing is officially encouraged, but not required. However, even if it were required, I just don't think the young'uns are going to be collectively responsible enough to either a) not party or b) party while socially distancing and wearing masks (correctly). Actually, I'm not sure which of the two options is the most ludicrous. My DH agrees that Fall will probably be a disaster, but incredibly, there are some faculty who are naïve enough to believe that the students will be "behave themselves" in the fall (in spite of the current evidence).

The morbid and very sad question, is how many deaths will have to happen among the 18-21 group (i.e. students) before students, institutions, and parents realize that the whole thing was inevitable, to anyone willing to see it?

This is also morbid, but I think all we need is one well-publicized death of an otherwise healthy young person to make everyone start taking this more seriously. I mean one well-publicized local young person death. That will hit home.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on June 26, 2020, 06:53:46 AM
Each year "1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries". (Of course, who knows how accurate that claim is, but it is a standard one.)

It's clear that students will be safer this year because they won't be binge drinking at parties nearly as much. Overall, student deaths will go down this year. The risks of younger people dying from Coronavirus are very low.

The issue regarding health is much more serious for college employees, especially those in the older age groups.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on June 26, 2020, 06:58:25 AM
QUININE: mentioned a lot in "disease" scenes in old movie? Could it help in therapies and treatments directed to Corona Virus 19 patients?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on June 26, 2020, 07:35:07 AM
Quinine has a lot of side-effects. It is no longer widely used even for malaria (its original use).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on June 26, 2020, 07:36:22 AM
Quote from: Economizer on June 26, 2020, 06:58:25 AM
QUININE: mentioned a lot in "disease" scenes in old movie? Could it help in therapies and treatments directed to Corona Virus 19 patients?

No.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on June 26, 2020, 07:36:50 AM
Quote from: downer on June 26, 2020, 06:53:46 AM
Each year "1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries". (Of course, who knows how accurate that claim is, but it is a standard one.)

It's clear that students will be safer this year because they won't be binge drinking at parties nearly as much. Overall, student deaths will go down this year. The risks of younger people dying from Coronavirus are very low.


The issue that needs to be considered is that institutions closed in the winter because of the risk, thereby acknowledging that

Furthermore, the institutions bringing students back on campus are doing so based on the perceived value of the face-to-face experience. (For programs requiring actual hands-on experience, where being on campus is the only option, they have a reasonable case to make.)

So, the risk, even if mitigated somewhat by masks, distancing, etc., is being accepted based on the intangible value of the f2f experience. This is going to be really bad when students in first year are enticed on campus for the experience and then get sick and die. No parent is going to agree in retrospect that it was worth it. (On the other hand, students in some sort of health sciences field, who have to be on campus for practical experiences, which carry the kinds of risks that the actual profession would, are in a much different position.)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on June 26, 2020, 08:09:56 AM
Quinine and hydroxychlorquine are almost the same thing. Same mode of action. So no, it won't help. Now if you need a daily Gin and Tonic for your mental health, that's a whole other matter!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on June 26, 2020, 08:16:58 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on June 26, 2020, 08:09:56 AM
Now if you need a daily Gin and Tonic for your mental health, that's a whole other matter!

Which reminds me, I need to look up margarita recipes. For medicinal purposes, you see.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on June 26, 2020, 08:27:32 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 26, 2020, 07:36:50 AM
Quote from: downer on June 26, 2020, 06:53:46 AM
Each year "1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries". (Of course, who knows how accurate that claim is, but it is a standard one.)

It's clear that students will be safer this year because they won't be binge drinking at parties nearly as much. Overall, student deaths will go down this year. The risks of younger people dying from Coronavirus are very low.


The issue that needs to be considered is that institutions closed in the winter because of the risk, thereby acknowledging that

  • the risk is real
  • being on campus raises the risk significantly

Furthermore, the institutions bringing students back on campus are doing so based on the perceived value of the face-to-face experience. (For programs requiring actual hands-on experience, where being on campus is the only option, they have a reasonable case to make.)

So, the risk, even if mitigated somewhat by masks, distancing, etc., is being accepted based on the intangible value of the f2f experience. This is going to be really bad when students in first year are enticed on campus for the experience and then get sick and die. No parent is going to agree in retrospect that it was worth it. (On the other hand, students in some sort of health sciences field, who have to be on campus for practical experiences, which carry the kinds of risks that the actual profession would, are in a much different position.)

You say that's the issue. I'd say it's an issue, but the main game is risk reduction, and young people are at low risk.

Parents sending kids off to college already know that their kids are at risk for dying due to alcohol, drugs, car crashes, or suicide. They have continued to send their kids off to college despite this because they think it is a worthwhile risk. Now more than ever, having a college degree will be important for getting a job later on, and gives their kids something to do while there are no jobs. Colleges seem to be making calculations that they just need to make some effort to reduce risk to students. Many colleges seem to be rather unconcerned about risks to staff.

Students are good at transmitting the virus to others, as today's headline article in NYT (https://nyti.ms/2YvRmPk) shows. I'm mainly concerned about my own health.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Penna on June 26, 2020, 09:13:29 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on June 25, 2020, 11:08:32 PM
I get grocery delivery and I have not left the house to go to a store or see other people since early March.  I've been out for solo walks and for a few errands that don't involve other people, like putting my vote-by-mail ballot in the mailbox.

But among my friends, I see I am unusual. I am nonplussed at so many people going out for inessential reasons. Clearly they estimate the risks different than I do. I'm in several vulnerable categories, so my strategy for surviving is "Don't get the virus," rather than "Hope for the best."  I wouldn't set foot in a grocery store right now — well, for anything. Delivery is easy

This is pretty much where I am, except that I am not in any designated high-risk categories (I'm in my early 50s with none of the underlying conditions that are typically cited as high-risk).  I've just been a very risk-averse person all of my life, and also one who has always struggled with certain anxiety triggers, so I just know that I feel mentally much better keeping my personal risk levels to the absolute lowest they can be.  I get curbside pickup for groceries, drive-thru for Rx, and delivery for everything else. And other than than, I literally do not go out except to my campus office, but there is never anyone else in the building then.  And since I am married, I don't have the extra challenge of living alone during times when seeing other people will always involve some level of risk.

I live in an area where cases and hospitalizations have been rising significantly in recent weeks, though (drawing national attention), and am very worried about having to return to even a modified form of in-person instruction in the fall, even with a classroom mask mandate and a socially distanced classroom (via various "HyFlex" and hybrid approaches).  We'll see if my institution reverses course on its current plan or not.

The thing that gets me is the way that some of my fellow faculty talk about the situation at my institution.  It's clear that we are re-opening for in-person instruction due to the certain devastating financial impacts if we were to lose the revenue from residential room and board fees.  I get that, and of course I don't want my institution to possibly end up closing or experience mass layoffs either.  At my age and in my field, I seriously doubt I would ever be able to find another full-time position in academe again.

Yet I feel too many faculty are turning a blind eye to the real ethical issue behind our reopening:  yes, our institution might financially collapse and close if we stayed online-only (or mostly online, with allowances for lab/clinical and other types of necessarily "hands-on" types of classes).  Or at the very least, more people (including faculty) might lose their jobs (so far, only some lower-level staff members have been permanently laid off).

However, if we go ahead with reopening, and, at the end of the academic year, even just a few admin/faculty/staff/students have become seriously ill (potentially leaving them with lifelong health effects even if they recover, as some preliminary reporting suggests) and/or died from Covid, will the same people who seem to have the view that our institution has "no choice" but to run most classes with in-person instruction feel that the fact that the school remained open and no additional people lost their jobs was "worth it"?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 26, 2020, 09:17:30 AM
Webex meetings. We are in for the biggest charlie foxtrot with the fall schedule. SMH.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ab_grp on June 26, 2020, 12:19:35 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on June 25, 2020, 11:08:32 PM
I get grocery delivery and I have not left the house to go to a store or see other people since early March.  I've been out for solo walks and for a few errands that don't involve other people, like putting my vote-by-mail ballot in the mailbox.

But among my friends, I see I am unusual. I am nonplussed at so many people going out for inessential reasons. Clearly they estimate the risks different than I do. I'm in several vulnerable categories, so my strategy for surviving is "Don't get the virus," rather than "Hope for the best."  I wouldn't set foot in a grocery store right now — well, for anything. Delivery is easy, and I can pay the delivery people a big tip because I'm certainly not spending money on anything else.  I also signed up for a nice weekly delivered farm share.  People say, "You can't live in fear." Well, I'm not living in fear, precisely because I'm staying home.

Our area is low in cases, but we went into phase 1 of opening up a couple of weeks ago. Sure enough there came a surge of cases. A few people having parties, and then the people infected at the parties being out and about (until they fell sick), was enough to get it going.

Like Penna, this is pretty much my situation.  We get everything delivered except for wine and beer, which we order through the local bar and pick up from the owner before they open (with everyone wearing masks).  We've been doing grocery delivery for about 2 years.  Tried it because of a free delivery coupon code and never went back.  It was great when husband had a heart attack last year, the after effects of which took up a lot of time and energy (he's good now).  But given his underlying condition and one of my own, we stay isolated.  Luckily, we enjoy being at home and have no real desire to go out.  I haven't left the house since medical tests in March that I didn't want to go to (but figured it wasn't going to get better out there in the near future) other than to drop off mail in the PO slot.  He has only gone out to go to work with full gear on, and he goes in on Sundays when only a skeleton crew is there.  I also feel that it's better to avoid getting it than hope it's mild if I do.  Plus, why take the risk of being on the road with people who can't even take the responsibility to wear masks in the grocery store? People here drive pretty badly to begin with.  I don't need to be in the hospital for any reason right now! I can understand people feeling antsy to get out, or maybe they want to take their chances.  I just am not, and I don't.  My elderly mother (a nurse), who is in a much hotter spot area, is extremely antsy and also does not want to wear a mask.  I can't control that, of course.  Many of my friends feel the same way she does.  My oldest daughter (also a nurse) moved to a new city during this and has a new guy she's dating out there, and they go to restaurants and etc.   Hopefully people do take reasonable precautions when they are out, but I just don't trust human nature enough to want to chance it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 26, 2020, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: ab_grp on June 26, 2020, 12:19:35 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on June 25, 2020, 11:08:32 PM
I get grocery delivery and I have not left the house to go to a store or see other people since early March.  I've been out for solo walks and for a few errands that don't involve other people, like putting my vote-by-mail ballot in the mailbox.

But among my friends, I see I am unusual. I am nonplussed at so many people going out for inessential reasons. Clearly they estimate the risks different than I do. I'm in several vulnerable categories, so my strategy for surviving is "Don't get the virus," rather than "Hope for the best."  I wouldn't set foot in a grocery store right now — well, for anything. Delivery is easy, and I can pay the delivery people a big tip because I'm certainly not spending money on anything else.  I also signed up for a nice weekly delivered farm share.  People say, "You can't live in fear." Well, I'm not living in fear, precisely because I'm staying home.

Our area is low in cases, but we went into phase 1 of opening up a couple of weeks ago. Sure enough there came a surge of cases. A few people having parties, and then the people infected at the parties being out and about (until they fell sick), was enough to get it going.

Like Penna, this is pretty much my situation.  We get everything delivered except for wine and beer, which we order through the local bar and pick up from the owner before they open (with everyone wearing masks).  We've been doing grocery delivery for about 2 years.  Tried it because of a free delivery coupon code and never went back.  It was great when husband had a heart attack last year, the after effects of which took up a lot of time and energy (he's good now).  But given his underlying condition and one of my own, we stay isolated.  Luckily, we enjoy being at home and have no real desire to go out.  I haven't left the house since medical tests in March that I didn't want to go to (but figured it wasn't going to get better out there in the near future) other than to drop off mail in the PO slot.  He has only gone out to go to work with full gear on, and he goes in on Sundays when only a skeleton crew is there.  I also feel that it's better to avoid getting it than hope it's mild if I do.  Plus, why take the risk of being on the road with people who can't even take the responsibility to wear masks in the grocery store? People here drive pretty badly to begin with.  I don't need to be in the hospital for any reason right now! I can understand people feeling antsy to get out, or maybe they want to take their chances.  I just am not, and I don't.  My elderly mother (a nurse), who is in a much hotter spot area, is extremely antsy and also does not want to wear a mask.  I can't control that, of course.  Many of my friends feel the same way she does.  My oldest daughter (also a nurse) moved to a new city during this and has a new guy she's dating out there, and they go to restaurants and etc.   Hopefully people do take reasonable precautions when they are out, but I just don't trust human nature enough to want to chance it.

That's perfectly reasonable, given your life situation and health risks. However, it isn't as workable for everyone. We have a young kid and being stuck at home with him for two months was brutal. He's now back in daycare which is good for him. Hopefully we'll all remain healthy. I've been trying to move into finding a version of life I can manage for the long haul. We've seen some friends at an appropriate distance outside, which did a lot for my mental health. We've started doing things like going to swimming places where it is possible to keep your distance. It seems clear that all of this stuff is pretty low risk and the reward is pretty high.

We are still doing pick up of groceries and if places have a pick up outside option. I'm doing that on the principle that I may as well avoid even low risk things when it is easy to do so. I'm certainly not going to go eat at a restaurant anytime soon or go to the gym or do other non-essential high risk things.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on June 26, 2020, 01:45:52 PM
I see a lot of magical thinking and looking for exceptions amongst my friends & acquaintances.

One friend: "Oh, I am not going out at all! I mean, I go to the grocery, but only once a week. And I went to the eye doctor for my annual checkup, and to my massage person because I really feel a lot better if I get a massage. And I didn't want to look completely feral so I got my hair cut and my mani/pedi. Then I had my church choir over for lunch but we all sat outside and only Annabel sang." 

(And I'm thinking, that's like a dozen contacts in one week!)

Another friend: "I'm not taking chances, I'm only seeing family. I see Bob's crew because he's my brother and they're his family, and then my niece and her husband, and her mother-in-law because she's over a lot, and then my kids and their spouses, but apart from that I'm not seeing anybody."

(Logical flaw: If I know them well, they won't be infected with the virus.)

Another friend: "I wouldn't see anybody who had any symptoms! I only hang out with people who are healthy."

(Logical flaw: You're assuming the symptoms are severe, or correctly identified, or that they're not infectious but asymptomatic.)

Everybody in general: "This virus is here to stay! We'll all get it sometime!  You can't live in fear!"

(My response: Well, we'll see. If I have to get it, I'd rather take the risk way down the road, when we know more about how it behaves and about treating it.)

Other people in general: "If you want to stay home, stay home! You do you. I'm not living in fear!"

(My response: Ah, good old American individualism — every man for himself. No wonder we're such a public-health catastrophe.)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ab_grp on June 26, 2020, 01:53:16 PM
Caracal, I do understand that others make different choices, so I'm sorry if I sounded a bit strident.  Part of that is just due to stress over some family members who are taking a trip this weekend that seems really risky to me.  In any case, a friend of mine is in a similar position to yours.  She has a two year old, and both she and her spouse have had to try to balance their work and stimulating their daughter for months.  She was just able to get her daughter back into a small day care last week, which has been a tremendous relief.  If my kids were here during this thing they'd probably be bored to death, and that would certainly make staying in less enjoyable! Plus, I get that for some it's just not tenable to stay in as much as we do.  We are fortunate to be able to work mostly remotely (well, I am now a lady of leisure or "between jobs" I guess thanks to the economy, but I worked fully remotely until a month ago).  There also isn't much open to go to around here.  But although many people like you are trying to get out and about safely, there are others who don't seem to want to take any precautions at all.  That seems to me to ruin things for everyone.  But I can appreciate that everyone needs to find their own risk-reward balance, which depends a lot on their circumstances (including location).

Hegemony, I hear the same kinds of things.  Especially when folks I know say they are only seeing a few people here and there (and not in a safely distanced way because it's only a few), including family, I wonder who those people they're seeing had been in contact with, etc.  I am guilty of that kind of thinking myself in other situations, though.  Again, maybe human nature, but some of the situations I hear about really don't make sense to me.   
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on June 26, 2020, 02:05:08 PM
Quote from: downer on June 26, 2020, 08:27:32 AM

[. . .]

Parents sending kids off to college already know that their kids are at risk for dying due to alcohol, drugs, car crashes, or suicide. They have continued to send their kids off to college despite this because they think it is a worthwhile risk.

[. . . ]

Well . . . actually people are generally very bad at thinking probabilistically and they tend to suffer from optimism bias. A lot of parents think that universities have the legal and moral obligation to create completely risk-free environments for their little Joshuas and Madisons.

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 26, 2020, 09:17:30 AM
Webex meetings. We are in for the biggest charlie foxtrot with the fall schedule. SMH.

Yes, same here. IT keeps pushing Webex as the cure for all evils. Every week faculty hear that Webex is pushing out new features and bug fixes. And just last week we heard that Microsoft videoconferencing is "rapidly gaining ground." Meanwhile Zoom already does in a click or two what these companies are promising.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on June 26, 2020, 02:12:28 PM
QuoteEverybody in general: "This virus is here to stay! We'll all get it sometime!  You can't live in fear!"

(My response: Well, we'll see. If I have to get it, I'd rather take the risk way down the road, when we know more about how it behaves and about treating it.)

This. The longer you delay getting it, the better the chances of effective treatments being available - already there is a little more than can be done than there was until recently. Even if there is no further progress, you're better off getting it when your location is well past the peak than near the peak, because the system won't be so overwhelmed. If you delay getting it enough, there might be a vaccine available, in which case you might avoid getting it altogether, or at least ensure you get a mild version. Worst case scenario, no vaccine and no further drugs, if you hold out long enough eventually herd immunity will develop - no pandemic has ever not gone down substantially eventually, even if it's only because of all the more susceptible people dying off and evolutionary pressures on the pathogen itself.

Non-US location here - testing rates are pretty low, and there are various other issues with the figures, so we only have a very crude idea of how bad the situation here is. That adds more uncertainty, and more reason to use the ancient methods of prevention. As I've said earlier, my biggest worry isn't really me or anyone else in my household dying of covid, my biggest worry is my wife and I becoming too ill to care for the baby. It's not a binary swift-death-or-asymptomatic thing, which is something a lot of people seem to forget.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 26, 2020, 05:04:58 PM
Quote from: ab_grp on June 26, 2020, 01:53:16 PM
Caracal, I do understand that others make different choices, so I'm sorry if I sounded a bit strident.  Part of that is just due to stress over some family members who are taking a trip this weekend that seems really risky to me.  In any case, a friend of mine is in a similar position to yours.  She has a two year old, and both she and her spouse have had to try to balance their work and stimulating their daughter for months.  She was just able to get her daughter back into a small day care last week, which has been a tremendous relief.  If my kids were here during this thing they'd probably be bored to death, and that would certainly make staying in less enjoyable! Plus, I get that for some it's just not tenable to stay in as much as we do.  We are fortunate to be able to work mostly remotely (well, I am now a lady of leisure or "between jobs" I guess thanks to the economy, but I worked fully remotely until a month ago).  There also isn't much open to go to around here.  But although many people like you are trying to get out and about safely, there are others who don't seem to want to take any precautions at all.  That seems to me to ruin things for everyone.


Yes, certainly lots of people not trying at all around here too. On one hand you have lots of spread from people who don't have much choice about going into work in unsafe conditions, but you also just see a lot of people who can't seem to be bothered. It's frustrating because there's actually a lot that can be done pretty safely.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on June 27, 2020, 04:52:23 AM
Quote from: downer on June 26, 2020, 06:53:46 AM
Each year "1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries". (Of course, who knows how accurate that claim is, but it is a standard one.)

It's clear that students will be safer this year because they won't be binge drinking at parties nearly as much. Overall, student deaths will go down this year. The risks of younger people dying from Coronavirus are very low.

The issue regarding health is much more serious for college employees, especially those in the older age groups.

Binge drinking students don't generally pass binge drinking along to their parents and grandparents.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on June 27, 2020, 05:07:59 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 27, 2020, 04:52:23 AM
Quote from: downer on June 26, 2020, 06:53:46 AM
Each year "1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries". (Of course, who knows how accurate that claim is, but it is a standard one.)

It's clear that students will be safer this year because they won't be binge drinking at parties nearly as much. Overall, student deaths will go down this year. The risks of younger people dying from Coronavirus are very low.

The issue regarding health is much more serious for college employees, especially those in the older age groups.

Binge drinking students don't generally pass binge drinking along to their parents and grandparents.

That's my point. The concern should not be particularly about students dying from corona virus, because probably few will -- it should be about them acting as spreaders of the virus, and how it will impact older people, including university faculty and staff.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on June 27, 2020, 06:25:30 AM
Quote from: downer on June 27, 2020, 05:07:59 AM

That's my point. The concern should not be particularly about students dying from corona virus, because probably few will -- it should be about them acting as spreaders of the virus, and how it will impact older people, including university faculty and staff.

I can't recall whether it's a local statistic, or more general, but about 30% of the covid infections are among healthcare workers. Consider:

The reason healthcare workers get infected, despite all of those things, is their exposure to infected people.  Once students get on campus, without any of those things, the infection rate of people exposed will be much higher.

In other words, when there are outbreaks on campus, they will be big.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: polly_mer on June 27, 2020, 10:50:41 AM
Quote from: spork on June 26, 2020, 02:05:08 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 26, 2020, 09:17:30 AM
Webex meetings. We are in for the biggest charlie foxtrot with the fall schedule. SMH.

Yes, same here. IT keeps pushing Webex as the cure for all evils. Every week faculty hear that Webex is pushing out new features and bug fixes. And just last week we heard that Microsoft videoconferencing is "rapidly gaining ground." Meanwhile Zoom already does in a click or two what these companies are promising.

I regularly use Zoom, Webex, and Skype.

The primary differences I notice are the variety of equipment people are using to connect and how much bandwidth they have. 

A crummy mic on a smart phone that is held at arm's length at a random height is much more of a problem than which software is involved.

Connecting from the hinterlands and trying to share video that is irrelevant (the Brady Bunch boxes) instead of calling in via phone for a much better connection for a discussion that can be completely without visuals is my current biggest pet peeve.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on June 27, 2020, 10:53:16 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on June 27, 2020, 10:50:41 AM
I regularly use Zoom, Webex, and Skype.

The primary differences I notice are the variety of equipment people are using to connect and how much bandwidth they have. 

A crummy mic on a smart phone that is held at arm's length at a random height is much more of a problem than which software is involved.

Connecting from the hinterlands and trying to share video that is irrelevant (the Brady Bunch boxes) instead of calling in via phone for a much better connection for a discussion that can be completely without visuals is my current biggest pet peeve.

+1   And Zoom is overrated.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: polly_mer on June 27, 2020, 10:55:22 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on June 26, 2020, 01:45:52 PM
nother friend: "I'm not taking chances, I'm only seeing family. I see Bob's crew because he's my brother and they're his family, and then my niece and her husband, and her mother-in-law because she's over a lot, and then my kids and their spouses, but apart from that I'm not seeing anybody."

My in-laws were running on that logic.  My SIL is now under official quarantine due to exposure through her job.  We've got every digit crossed that she didn't manage to pass anything to the septuagenarians who refused to believe that close family would be a concern.  After all, SIL and BIL are only two people and the state says groups of up to 10 are fine so family groups of 4-6 should be fine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on June 27, 2020, 11:58:56 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on June 27, 2020, 10:53:16 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on June 27, 2020, 10:50:41 AM
I regularly use Zoom, Webex, and Skype.

The primary differences I notice are the variety of equipment people are using to connect and how much bandwidth they have. 

A crummy mic on a smart phone that is held at arm's length at a random height is much more of a problem than which software is involved.

Connecting from the hinterlands and trying to share video that is irrelevant (the Brady Bunch boxes) instead of calling in via phone for a much better connection for a discussion that can be completely without visuals is my current biggest pet peeve.

+1   And Zoom is overrated.

I suspected as much; in mid-March when the campus closed our art faculty jumped on Zoom. Understandably they needed a way to communicate with students visually. At the time Zoom was probably easier for them and their students to learn on very short notice (Webex still seems to require lots of steps to operate, though this might be due to whatever tier of service the university has purchased from Cisco).

The current problem is getting acceptable-quality, synced video and audio from the classroom to anyone connecting remotely with Webex. If everyone is online, things work ok. It's the "we're going to live stream everything from the F2F classroom" that's complicated.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on June 27, 2020, 08:54:09 PM
I see a lot of magical thinking and looking for exceptions amongst my friends & acquaintances.

One friend: "Oh, I am not going out at all! I mean, I go to the grocery, but only once a week. And I went to the eye doctor for my annual checkup, and to my massage person because I really feel a lot better if I get a massage. And I didn't want to look completely feral so I got my hair cut and my mani/pedi. Then I had my church choir over for lunch but we all sat outside and only Annabel sang."

(And I'm thinking, that's like a dozen contacts in one week!)


Hegemony, this seems reasonable to me.  If everybody kept human contacts down to this level then I think we will beat this disease. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on June 28, 2020, 05:54:58 AM
And yes, I am going to the opthomalogist (sp) tomorrow and may also have cataract surgery soon.  Either that, or lookat the world through increasingly blurry eyeballs.  It's a crapshoot.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on June 28, 2020, 06:03:41 AM
I too love to judge the reckless behavior of others.

But I like to go further, also judging those who stay in their apartments or houses the whole time and never seeing daylight or getting any exercise outside. There's an overabundance of caution, I think to myself.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on June 28, 2020, 09:45:32 AM
I dont remember IF I typed this here or not.  My PhD school office mate, early on, questions my too frequent trips to the grocery store to restock on salad stuff and fresh vegetables.
He asked, "What do you need So badly that you are WILLING TO DIE to get?"

After that I switched to ordering groceries delivered.

I admit that I fell off the wagon and was out and about. However, when I was out, I was disgusted by the number not only NOT wearing masks, but ignoring social distancing!  (Like when I was trying to get tomatos and an unmasked asshole steps right up and reaches over me to pick some too!)  "You dont have to wear a mask, but You DO have to back up and wait your turn!" 

Two weeks ago or so we were seeing positive tests in the teens.  A high of 25 was hit after a local meat processor was hit hard.  Yesterday we were "down to 215!" new positive cases!  We have tripled the number of positive cases in 10 days!   

I have learned MY LESSON!  Im back to staying out of the stores. 

Local government has cancelled parades and fireworks for next weekend.  Still, I fear that there will be too many more cases after next weekend (July 4).  IF there are over 200 positive cases found a day for the last 4/5 days, then how many cases are 'in the wild' waiting to kill me?

Good luck to all on your efforts to stay safe!  Remember, you are only as safe as the most selfish disease spreader out there!  Stay away from them or risk death!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on June 28, 2020, 10:59:04 AM
Quote from: clean on June 28, 2020, 09:45:32 AM

[. . . ]

IF there are over 200 positive cases found a day for the last 4/5 days, then how many cases are 'in the wild' waiting to kill me?

[. . . ]

If I remember correctly, best guesstimates are that today's numbers give a picture of the spread two weeks ago.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Penna on June 28, 2020, 11:09:40 AM
In relation to clean's grocery store anecdote:  yes, the inability to control the potential for other people to put me at risk (whether through ignorance, forgetfulness, or simply lack of adequate concern for others) is a huge factor driving my state of voluntary lockdown.

A couple of weeks ago, I was on campus checking out larger classrooms I might be able to use for some of my classes.  I ran into two campus visitors (a parent and new student), neither of whom were wearing masks.  They asked if I was a faculty member and I talked to them for about 10 or 15 minutes (we were standing in a semi-enclosed breezeway).  I was wearing a mask, but what felt really awkward was that, when they first approached me, I had to move backwards several times in order to maintain six feet of distance.   I guess I should have just voiced a verbal reminder ("six feet, please" or something) but I'm sort of a shy person in situations like that and so I said nothing and just moved a few steps back as necessary.  But it felt uncomfortable and made me somewhat anxious at the time. 

Regarding the issue of judging the behavior of others, I'll admit I am sometimes guilty of that as well.  But I do try not to.  I realize that other people may have any number of different circumstances which necessitate going out far more than I do. I also realize that some people are just wired differently and are willing to take a certain amount of risk because staying completely at home would negatively affect their mental and/or physical health.  In my case, staying at home doesn't really bother me, and in terms of physical health, I'm fortunate in that we have a dedicated workout room in our house, with several pieces of exercise equipment.

As long as those people who are going out are doing their best to avoid putting others at risk in the process by strictly following all the guidelines, I don't feel any impulse to judge them.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on June 28, 2020, 11:12:56 AM
QuoteQuote from: clean on Today at 09:45:32 AM

[. . . ]

IF there are over 200 positive cases found a day for the last 4/5 days, then how many cases are 'in the wild' waiting to kill me?

[. . . ]

If I remember correctly, best guesstimates are that today's numbers give a picture of the spread two weeks ago.

I think that the maximum estimate for the incubation period is 2 weeks.  I think that the average/median period is between 3 and 6 days.  But with many people, especially the 20somethings that are the modal group of positive cases (at 27% of the total positive cases) having only mild effects, how many others might be infected now?  How long is one contagious?  AS masks have only again been required since Friday, I m certain that there are plenty of sick people spreading the illness and not aware that they even have it. 

We seem to be getting reports every day now on the news of another positive test at a grocery store, big box store or something. 

NOw that masks are required of all customers and staff, I hope that the positives will drop next week, unless the July 4th Saturday is an especially busy one for visitors.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 28, 2020, 11:44:31 AM
Quote from: clean on June 28, 2020, 09:45:32 AM
I dont remember IF I typed this here or not.  My PhD school office mate, early on, questions my too frequent trips to the grocery store to restock on salad stuff and fresh vegetables.
He asked, "What do you need So badly that you are WILLING TO DIE to get?"

After that I switched to ordering groceries delivered.

I admit that I fell off the wagon and was out and about. However, when I was out, I was disgusted by the number not only NOT wearing masks, but ignoring social distancing!  (Like when I was trying to get tomatos and an unmasked asshole steps right up and reaches over me to pick some too!)  "You dont have to wear a mask, but You DO have to back up and wait your turn!" 



By all accounts grocery stores aren't particularly high risk, just because they are big spaces and you aren't likely to be in prolonged contact with anybody for very long. So, I wouldn't say that people who go grocery stores are being reckless. We've been getting pick up, because it is a fairly easy thing to do.

On the other hand, there's a danger about worrying too much about low risk activities. Spread isn't being driven by people going to grocery stores, or socializing outside.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on June 28, 2020, 12:02:46 PM
For $5 I can have groceries delivered.  I just checked and I can get a delivery as soon as 2pm on Tuesday (Today is Sunday, 2 pm). 
I admit that the prices seem to be a tad higher than in the store, and you have to buy what they have online (as the selection online is more limited than that in the store, and you may have to buy the quantity that they offer... I can't  eat 2 pounds of bananas before they turn but that is the minimum for bananas.)

But I dont have to buy gas for the car, drive there, park, risk over buying (being enamored by 'a sale'!)...

For $5 It is hard to justify going to the store even if the risks are minimal (and Im not certain that they are, as it only takes one selfish, careless person to risk infecting others (killing ME!).

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Penna on June 28, 2020, 12:32:12 PM
Quote from: Caracal on June 28, 2020, 11:44:31 AM
Spread isn't being driven by people going to grocery stores, or socializing outside.

True.  I just wonder about what the actual level of risk will be for teaching in small, poorly ventilated classrooms for hours at a time--even with social distancing and a masking requirement.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on June 28, 2020, 01:39:24 PM
Although I continue to wear a mask, stay 6 feet away and practice handwashing, I'm a bit less concerned about risks than previously.

A recent webinar I attended reviewed the results of a trial of hydroxychloroquine to prevent Covid in 800 people who had had a significant (i.e. exposed for at least 10 minutes at less than 6 feet of distance) household or occupational exposure to a confirmed case of Covid.  Although I was not surprised to find that HCQ had no demonstrable prophylactic effect, what did catch my eye was this:

12 (HCQ arm) and 14% (placebo arm)  of subjects (all of whom had been significantly exposed to coronavirus) developed covid.  p=0.35

In other words, only about 1 in 8 people with a meaningful exposure developed covid.

I'm increasingly less concerned about the risk posed by the relatively brief time I spend in grocery stores and suspect the greater risk comes from more prolonged exposure - especially in crowded settings - like restaurants or Trump rallies.

For more detail see: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 28, 2020, 01:57:03 PM
Quote from: clean on June 28, 2020, 12:02:46 PM
For $5 I can have groceries delivered.  I just checked and I can get a delivery as soon as 2pm on Tuesday (Today is Sunday, 2 pm). 
I admit that the prices seem to be a tad higher than in the store, and you have to buy what they have online (as the selection online is more limited than that in the store, and you may have to buy the quantity that they offer... I can't  eat 2 pounds of bananas before they turn but that is the minimum for bananas.)

But I dont have to buy gas for the car, drive there, park, risk over buying (being enamored by 'a sale'!)...

For $5 It is hard to justify going to the store even if the risks are minimal (and Im not certain that they are, as it only takes one selfish, careless person to risk infecting others (killing ME!).

Oh sure, I wasn't criticizing your choices. I'm making that same choice. I was just saying we want to be careful to distinguish between our own personal choices about risk and judgements of others.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on June 28, 2020, 02:19:23 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on June 28, 2020, 01:39:24 PM
Although I continue to wear a mask, stay 6 feet away and practice handwashing, I'm a bit less concerned about risks than previously.

A recent webinar I attended reviewed the results of a trial of hydroxychloroquine to prevent Covid in 800 people who had had a significant (i.e. exposed for at least 10 minutes at less than 6 feet of distance) household or occupational exposure to a confirmed case of Covid.  Although I was not surprised to find that HCQ had no demonstrable prophylactic effect, what did catch my eye was this:

12 (HCQ arm) and 14% (placebo arm)  of subjects (all of whom had been significantly exposed to coronavirus) developed covid.  p=0.35

In other words, only about 1 in 8 people with a meaningful exposure developed covid.


This is relevant for students on campus, since every break between classes will tend to involve about 10 minutes of being within 6 feet of a whole bunch of people. So, once an outbreak starts, as more become (asymptomatically) infected, the halls will become more dangerous.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on June 29, 2020, 04:37:06 AM
Why I won't be traveling to Florida in the near future. (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/884551391/florida-scientist-says-she-was-fired-for-not-manipulating-covid-19-data)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: RatGuy on June 29, 2020, 05:25:42 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 28, 2020, 02:19:23 PM
This is relevant for students on campus, since every break between classes will tend to involve about 10 minutes of being within 6 feet of a whole bunch of people. So, once an outbreak starts, as more become (asymptomatically) infected, the halls will become more dangerous.

Still less dangerous than the taco place on Margarita Mondays or that one bar on Ladies Night or that other bar on Thirsty Thursday or that sports bar all weekend.

Students get mono, the flu, and all sorts of other stuff every year. It gets so bad every year that we just call it "the crud" and it starts knocking students out for the second half of October. I'm don't think my class will crack the top ten of the most contaminated places my students will encounter.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on June 29, 2020, 06:00:32 AM
Quote from: RatGuy on June 29, 2020, 05:25:42 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 28, 2020, 02:19:23 PM
This is relevant for students on campus, since every break between classes will tend to involve about 10 minutes of being within 6 feet of a whole bunch of people. So, once an outbreak starts, as more become (asymptomatically) infected, the halls will become more dangerous.

Still less dangerous than the taco place on Margarita Mondays or that one bar on Ladies Night or that other bar on Thirsty Thursday or that sports bar all weekend.

Students get mono, the flu, and all sorts of other stuff every year. It gets so bad every year that we just call it "the crud" and it starts knocking students out for the second half of October. I'm don't think my class will crack the top ten of the most contaminated places my students will encounter.

I don't disagree. In fact, that's exactly the point. Outbreaks WILL occur once students get brought back on campus. No amount of rules about PPE, distancing, etc. are going to prevent that.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on June 29, 2020, 04:59:02 PM
Almost 150 cases reported at University of Georgia, includes students and staff.

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/clarke-county/uga-confirms-nearly-150-cases-covid-19-among-students-staff/AMB36W6ENJBSHJPM7B2XL67T6Q/

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: polly_mer on June 29, 2020, 05:21:06 PM
Quote from: Caracal on June 28, 2020, 01:57:03 PM
I was just saying we want to be careful to distinguish between our own personal choices about risk and judgements of others.

That works when other people's carelessness doesn't have a direct effect on those of us who take the risks seriously because we're tracking the science instead of the press releases about the science.

Yes, I judge and I'm not sorry about judging harshly people who make bad choices that hurt other people.

This falls again into the category of why academics tend to have a bad reputation among the rest of us, when there's clearly correct and incorrect answers with severe consequences for being incorrect and somehow we're supposed to ignore that reality and not judge.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on June 30, 2020, 04:38:03 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on June 29, 2020, 04:59:02 PM
Almost 150 cases reported at University of Georgia, includes students and staff.

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/clarke-county/uga-confirms-nearly-150-cases-covid-19-among-students-staff/AMB36W6ENJBSHJPM7B2XL67T6Q/

Students were idiots.  Campus workers may have had inadequate protection.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 30, 2020, 05:10:53 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on June 29, 2020, 05:21:06 PM
Quote from: Caracal on June 28, 2020, 01:57:03 PM
I was just saying we want to be careful to distinguish between our own personal choices about risk and judgements of others.

That works when other people's carelessness doesn't have a direct effect on those of us who take the risks seriously because we're tracking the science instead of the press releases about the science.

Yes, I judge and I'm not sorry about judging harshly people who make bad choices that hurt other people.

This falls again into the category of why academics tend to have a bad reputation among the rest of us, when there's clearly correct and incorrect answers with severe consequences for being incorrect and somehow we're supposed to ignore that reality and not judge.

At this moment, I can't tell you how much this pisses me off. It is completely counterproductive. Don't choose self righteous bull-**** over actual useful messaging. Grocery stores are not extremely dangerous places for shoppers. I'd sooner avoid them, but they aren't driving spread. Those delivery and pick up services you and I use? They cost money, which not everyone has. Beaches, parks and outdoor places are the least dangerous places for people to socialize. Of course, people should be cautious, there and everywhere else, but if I see one more damn picture of people on a beach with a tag about "gatherings" I might lose it.

And no, there's no "science" that suggests anything else than this in broad strokes. The problem about the self righteous judgement is that it actively hurts. In fact, telling people that things that aren't that risky, are risky, is almost certainly going to backfire. It isn't reasonable to tell people not to socialize till sometime in the indeterminate future. Social contact is a basic human need. Avoiding it is hard. Of course, this takes empathy, not cheap judgement. You also have to offer options in terms of reduced risk. The safest thing is not having any contact. However, the next safest thing is contact outside and try to keep some distance.

The problem is that when you judge people for not particularly dangerous things, you actually encourage an attitude of "oh well, what can you do, I can't be a hermit for 6 months" rather than encouraging people to make sensible choices and balance risks. Of course, as you say, this all comes from a paternalistic attitude that only you are qualified to judge risks. It won't work, it won't help, we don't need it.

Before you start waving your hands about the real science, try this (from an epidemiologist) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/quarantine-fatigue-real-and-shaming-people-wont-help/61148

Or

https://twitter.com/AbraarKaran/status/1277741621384273920

Ok, rant over, I needed that.


Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on June 30, 2020, 08:09:27 AM
Quote from: Caracal on June 30, 2020, 05:10:53 AM
Grocery stores are not extremely dangerous places for shoppers. I'd sooner avoid them, but they aren't driving spread. Those delivery and pick up services you and I use? They cost money, which not everyone has. Beaches, parks and outdoor places are the least dangerous places for people to socialize. Of course, people should be cautious, there and everywhere else, but if I see one more damn picture of people on a beach with a tag about "gatherings" I might lose it.

And no, there's no "science" that suggests anything else than this in broad strokes. The problem about the self righteous judgement is that it actively hurts. In fact, telling people that things that aren't that risky, are risky, is almost certainly going to backfire. It isn't reasonable to tell people not to socialize till sometime in the indeterminate future. Social contact is a basic human need. Avoiding it is hard. Of course, this takes empathy, not cheap judgement. You also have to offer options in terms of reduced risk. The safest thing is not having any contact. However, the next safest thing is contact outside and try to keep some distance.

The problem is that when you judge people for not particularly dangerous things, you actually encourage an attitude of "oh well, what can you do, I can't be a hermit for 6 months" rather than encouraging people to make sensible choices and balance risks. Of course, as you say, this all comes from a paternalistic attitude that only you are qualified to judge risks. It won't work, it won't help, we don't need it.

Before you start waving your hands about the real science, try this (from an epidemiologist) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/quarantine-fatigue-real-and-shaming-people-wont-help/61148

Or

https://twitter.com/AbraarKaran/status/1277741621384273920

Ok, rant over, I needed that.

A lot of this seems to me to fall under not letting the best become the enemy of the good.  Yes, avoiding human contact almost entirely until a vaccine is developed is the surest way to avoid infection.  But it's becoming evident that one can engage in many activities outside the home with only limited risk to oneself and to others IF suitable precautions are taken.  A lot of us need to engage in these activities.  A lot of us have no choice. 

I have a locally important public service to run, and I can't do it from home.  We have staff members who need to work to make a living.  We have patrons who need our on-site services.  So we're here working, and using masks, social distancing, plexiglass barriers, careful cleaning after people, etc. to manage risks.  Yesterday we waited on dozens of people on-site.  But we never had more than a handful onsite at a time, we kept them socially distanced, minimized face-to-face contact, and cleaned up surfaces that received extended or repeated contact.  We quarantine returned library materials for at least two days and clean them before re-shelving.  All indications are that this regimen has reduced the chances of the disease being spread here to a very low level.  So my conscience is clear on this.  It's also clear when it comes to attending our recently reopened church where we practice masking and social distancing.

I have no patience for the childish attitudes of those who refuse to wear a mask or practice any precautions because they don't like anybody telling them what to do.  I also have no patience for the notion that the only intelligent or virtuous thing to do is to hunker down at home for a year or so.  Using our intelligence tells us that the world can't keep going unless there are people out there processing and delivering the wide array of essential goods and services needed by a modern society to exist.  The idea that if Congress would only borrow a few more trillion dollars we could pay everybody to stay at home for a year or so is a fantasy. 

As for virtue, it seems to me awfully smug for people who have jobs they can continue to do from home or other income they can depend upon to sit tight, pay others to take all the risks of going out and fetching their food and other goods for them, and then lecture everybody else on how they ought to be doing the same.  The stay-at-homes couldn't stay at home if some of us weren't out here in the world still working, running calculated risks to keep the world running.  The people I find admirable in this emergency are those who are out there taking their fair share of the chances in a risk-managed manner.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on June 30, 2020, 08:25:33 AM
The distinction between "using good judgement" and "being judgemental" was once pointed out to me as an important one to observe.

I think that idea might underlie the discussion here: we need to use our own good judgement, as informed by reliable direction from those who have studied epidemiology and the social constructions of illness, as a basis for our choices.

That might include abstaining from interactions with those whose judgement seems to us to be poor, and if called on to comment, we will do well to contextualize our pronouncements with mercy (myself included).

What's become frustrating is the kind of behavior and attitudes that want to shrug off informed opinion and, metaphorically, drive down the wrong side of the road at 90 mph whether or not they risk others' lives in their exhilaration.

As my dad used to say, "Your right to swing your fist stops where the other guy's nose begins."

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 30, 2020, 08:39:08 AM
Quote from: mamselle on June 30, 2020, 08:25:33 AM
The distinction between "using good judgement" and "being judgemental" was once pointed out to me as an important one to observe.

I think that idea might underlie the discussion here: we need to use our own good judgement, as informed by reliable direction from those who have studied epidemiology and the social constructions of illness, as a basis for our choices.

That might include abstaining from interactions with those whose judgement seems to us to be poor, and if called on to comment, we will do well to contextualize our pronouncements with mercy (myself included).

What's become frustrating is the kind of behavior and attitudes that want to shrug off informed opinion and, metaphorically, drive down the wrong side of the road at 90 mph whether or not they risk others' lives in their exhilaration.

As my dad used to say, "Your right to swing your fist stops where the other guy's nose begins."

M.

Well put. I'm frustrated by irresponsible behavior too. Of course, we shouldn't let it distract us from the irresponsible choices of those in power. I don't think anyone should be going out to a bar right now, but then why the hell are bars open in so many places? Ditto for indoor dining.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on June 30, 2020, 10:28:21 AM
Quotebut then why the hell are bars open in so many places? Ditto for indoor dining.

I believe that it is summed up by The Golden Rule.... the one that relates to $$$.  something about the Gold drives the rules?

IF bars and dining rooms are open, then sales taxes are collected, rents are paid, employees  go to work (and off the unemployment roles), and the economy improves  (Just In Time for Elections? maybe??).

When governments are looking at huge funding deficit, anything that can be done to increase the money flowing in and decrease the money flowing out!

Remember the Texas Vice Governor (whatever he is called in Texas)?  He made national news noting that Grandparents are willing to DIE for the financial well being of their grandchildren!  Taken to the extreme, with fewer 'old' people, the less we pay in health care (Medicare) or pay out in social security, the faster houses become available for the 20something crowd...

However, IF the bar crowd had followed the social distancing rules (IF that is possible to do in a bar anyway), then there would be no need to shut them down now.  It does not speak well of us in society though, that we are not taking precautions for the whole and instead focusing on the pleasure of the few.

oh well....
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on June 30, 2020, 11:06:43 AM
Quote from: Caracal on June 30, 2020, 08:39:08 AM

Well put. I'm frustrated by irresponsible behavior too. Of course, we shouldn't let it distract us from the irresponsible choices of those in power. I don't think anyone should be going out to a bar right now, but then why the hell are bars open in so many places? Ditto for indoor dining.

I went into a local bar and grill at the end of May to get some take out food.  They were the only place still serving near midnight. I walked in being the only person with a mask on.  There were 30 people close together with no masks.  The music was loud which forces people to raise their voices, another thing which increases the chances of virus transmission.    It was during the month of May that this county went from 20 cases to 600 positive tests out of a total population of 30,000 people. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 30, 2020, 12:47:58 PM
Quote from: clean on June 30, 2020, 10:28:21 AM
Quotebut then why the hell are bars open in so many places? Ditto for indoor dining.

I believe that it is summed up by The Golden Rule.... the one that relates to $$$.  something about the Gold drives the rules?

IF bars and dining rooms are open, then sales taxes are collected, rents are paid, employees  go to work (and off the unemployment roles), and the economy improves  (Just In Time for Elections? maybe??).

When governments are looking at huge funding deficit, anything that can be done to increase the money flowing in and decrease the money flowing out!

Remember the Texas Vice Governor (whatever he is called in Texas)?  He made national news noting that Grandparents are willing to DIE for the financial well being of their grandchildren!  Taken to the extreme, with fewer 'old' people, the less we pay in health care (Medicare) or pay out in social security, the faster houses become available for the 20something crowd...

However, IF the bar crowd had followed the social distancing rules (IF that is possible to do in a bar anyway), then there would be no need to shut them down now.  It does not speak well of us in society though, that we are not taking precautions for the whole and instead focusing on the pleasure of the few.

oh well....

Except that the economy is not going to improve in the midst of a raging pandemic.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on June 30, 2020, 01:17:33 PM
QuoteExcept that the economy is not going to improve in the midst of a raging pandemic.

I would agree until this statement is wrong.
The economy was certainly improving while the bars and restaurants were full of unmasked, drinking, carousing folks.  they were certainly spending money!
The idea that people will avoid these places, as evidenced by the need to shut them back down, is that people did NOT avoid them.  Some people (myself included) avoided them, but others (see the news!!) did not! 

So assuming that an improving economy is dependent on the cure or effective, inexpensive treatment of CV19 does not seem to be what has been observed.  There are plenty that ARE willing to get back to spending money (even at the risk of their lives and certainly they were willing to risk the lives of others!)  on what others consider dangerous & selfish behavior.

Im certainly in favor of masks and I think that closing bars and many other places is a legitimate health precaution to follow.  However, given the number of people that were IN bars, getting their hair, nails, tans, workouts, barn burning picnics/bbqs/get together outings, then it seems that the economy CAN recover without a cure (virus spread be damned!)
It just can not recover AND protect the health and safety of the especially vulnerable.  Clearly, there are too many who dont care about anyone but themselves that have ruined it for the rest of us.  (IF bars were not full, and blame the owners if you want, ok by me!, then they would not be closed for helping to spread this!)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 30, 2020, 01:40:04 PM
Quote from: clean on June 30, 2020, 01:17:33 PM
QuoteExcept that the economy is not going to improve in the midst of a raging pandemic.

I would agree until this statement is wrong.
The economy was certainly improving while the bars and restaurants were full of unmasked, drinking, carousing folks.  they were certainly spending money!
The idea that people will avoid these places, as evidenced by the need to shut them back down, is that people did NOT avoid them.  Some people (myself included) avoided them, but others (see the news!!) did not! 

So assuming that an improving economy is dependent on the cure or effective, inexpensive treatment of CV19 does not seem to be what has been observed.  There are plenty that ARE willing to get back to spending money (even at the risk of their lives and certainly they were willing to risk the lives of others!)  on what others consider dangerous & selfish behavior.

Im certainly in favor of masks and I think that closing bars and many other places is a legitimate health precaution to follow.  However, given the number of people that were IN bars, getting their hair, nails, tans, workouts, barn burning picnics/bbqs/get together outings, then it seems that the economy CAN recover without a cure (virus spread be damned!)
It just can not recover AND protect the health and safety of the especially vulnerable.  Clearly, there are too many who dont care about anyone but themselves that have ruined it for the rest of us.  (IF bars were not full, and blame the owners if you want, ok by me!, then they would not be closed for helping to spread this!)

Well most bars are not full. In general, even in states where there are few restrictions, restaurant revenue is way down, at least 20 to thirty percent in many places. Perhaps, if you're catering to a particularly young crowd, you're feeling the effects less, but places that are not like that are hurting, or are running at reduced hours with reduced staff.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on June 30, 2020, 06:03:27 PM
The bars and restaurants may be full for a couple of weeks, but then cases of the virus soar and even the people who were fine with going out to crowded places begin to get wary and hesitant, and they stop going out in such numbers. And people who are home with a high fever, or in the hospital, are not going out on the town. So in a way it's self-correcting — at a high cost. I know that a number of people, especially politicians and business owners, think that if we just open up fully and stay open, the economy will go back to normal and at least we'll have that. But a sizeable part of the population remains careful, and a certain percentage are not going out no matter what. And for the bolder ones, a good proportion of them will be reluctant to go out as numbers soar, and some of them will be too sick to go out. You're not going to get back to a normal economy until this thing is no longer a threat.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on July 01, 2020, 04:35:28 AM
In places such as AZ, which 'opened up" and now hospital capacity is being pushed to the max, how do increasing numbers of sick people needing medical care affect the economy? 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on July 01, 2020, 06:47:17 AM
I don't know enough to answer the question above--someone should, it's a good question--but as a musician who's played in hotels,restaurants, etc., I know the break-even point between the costs of opening, paying the utilities, and staff salaries, etc., offset against the amount of income from a reduced clientele, has got to be tight.

The margins are so tiny in the best of circumstances that I'm having a hard time seeing how it's functional to open at all until the "all-clear" has truly sounded--maybe next March, sometime.

Refrigeration units, gas pilot lights, security-level lighting, and water pressure all have to be maintained, true.

But the income from a few meals a night is not going to cover payout to the cook's, sous-chef's, prepper's, bussers', and waitstaff's salaries, and tipping is wild--some high, some low--so it could be just as precarious to open as not.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on July 01, 2020, 07:18:02 AM
The loans that were in the news a month or so ago required that a good chunk of the loan be used to pay wages.  (You may remember them because they were meant for small business and some bigger companies got the loans before the funding ran out). 
For restaurants  that got those loans, then as long as the revenue covered the cost of the food, then it makes sense to open.  They pay labor anyway as required by the loan. 

In the economic sense, as long as a company covers the variable costs, then they are better to open.  (they pay the fixed cost whether open or not.)

From  the customer's perspective, while I wont be dining in, there are too many that want things to be normal. They will go out because they are tired of being in.  The more people they see out, then they will just think that the safer it is to be out and about anyway.  I dont know of a good way to explain it other than the idea that "But Johnny's mom lets HIM go to Olive Garden" (to which the reply would include jumping off a bridge .... though there are plenty of bungie jumpers!!)


Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 01, 2020, 12:05:57 PM
I just found out that one of my family members may have Covid.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on July 01, 2020, 12:28:47 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 01, 2020, 12:05:57 PM
I just found out that one of my family members may have Covid.
So sorry to hear this, EPW.  Sending good thoughts, and take care of yourself as well.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on July 01, 2020, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: AmLitHist on July 01, 2020, 12:28:47 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 01, 2020, 12:05:57 PM
I just found out that one of my family members may have Covid.
So sorry to hear this, EPW.  Sending good thoughts, and take care of yourself as well.

+1  Best wishes to your family and you, evil_physics_witchcraft.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on July 01, 2020, 10:20:46 PM
Back in early March I was privileged to work with [me, a sub riding herd] a youngish PHD in a high school algebra class made up of kinda average students. The threat potential of the Carona virus seemed to be rapidly coming to the fore. The topic for the class was EXPONENTS. She did a great job of relating that to the looming potential spread of Coved 19 infection.

A student was given markers and was instructed to place a mark on 3 student, oh heck, I cannot  rememember exactly how it went, but the the students went to logging the exponential increase potential of real people getting infected. In a months time numbers (×, x2, x3......) amounted to the thousands upon thousands of people. So, to make a long conclusion short, utilizing tracking, wearing masks, social distancing, or knockin' some sense in the heads of blockheads who, for now anyway, like their odds to be able to survive, even if they reduce the chances of others, seems to be imperative. Good luck on figuring how to get this critter back in the can. Mass cooperation [we haven't had that in a while locally much less globally] and more will be needed. So me saying this, the stage is set for some guy or girl to come up with a peanut butter paste that makes the virus go away like [or as] a scalded dog!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on July 02, 2020, 04:58:13 AM
Massive numbers of Covid patients are not actually good for hospitals. Hospitals make a lot of their money from elective or non-urgent procedures, like knee operations, hip replacements, etc. All of those get cancelled when the pandemic comes to town. Not to mention the problem of healthcare workers dying from Covid-19.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 02, 2020, 07:29:38 AM
The number of known active cases in our county has been hovering around 20 in the days since the rodeo came and went.  A notable increase over what it was before, and a lot for an area this sparsely populated, but not yet as bad as I'd feared.  We've still had only a single fatality so far.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: wuggish on July 02, 2020, 09:49:38 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on July 02, 2020, 04:58:13 AM
Massive numbers of Covid patients are not actually good for hospitals. Hospitals make a lot of their money from elective or non-urgent procedures, like knee operations, hip replacements, etc. All of those get cancelled when the pandemic comes to town. Not to mention the problem of healthcare workers dying from Covid-19.

And everything getting slower and more complex with increased PPE requirements and disinfection. And no or fewer visitors to use the cafeteria and gift shop. Et cetera.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on July 02, 2020, 10:56:24 AM
COVID Parties WIth a prize for the first infected!

https://www.aol.com/people-throwing-covid-19-parties-152316994.html

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/alabama-students-throw-covid-parties-152244838.html

IN NY, Party goers not cooperating with contact tracers (Parents either!)

https://www.pix11.com/news/coronavirus/partygoes-refuse-to-cooperate-with-contact-tracers-in-rockland-county-officials-warn


Boy... I just can not WAIT to get back to being in the room with these people/idiots/students/carriers!

Anything like this going on nearer to you?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 02, 2020, 11:14:00 AM
Quote from: clean on July 02, 2020, 10:56:24 AM
COVID Parties WIth a prize for the first infected!

https://www.aol.com/people-throwing-covid-19-parties-152316994.html

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/alabama-students-throw-covid-parties-152244838.html

IN NY, Party goers not cooperating with contact tracers (Parents either!)

https://www.pix11.com/news/coronavirus/partygoes-refuse-to-cooperate-with-contact-tracers-in-rockland-county-officials-warn


Boy... I just can not WAIT to get back to being in the room with these people/idiots/students/carriers!

Anything like this going on nearer to you?

This has all the hallmarks of a fake story. First of all, the details are suspiciously sparse. They also seem to keep changing. The first stories I saw about this said people who knew they had COVID had gone to parties. Now, they seem to have actually been "COVID parties." It is also suspiciously similar to other urban legends and rumors.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/party-scarred/

This often ends up happening. Local agencies end up hearing rumors, believe they are true, and then amplify them. I really, really doubt this is happening.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on July 02, 2020, 11:23:52 AM
There is an historical precedent, perhaps with different motivations.

"Smallpox parties" and "measles parties" have been held at various points, with the aim of becoming infected in an environment with friends and/or family, and (sometimes) with (informed?) health caregivers either on-site or nearby.

Not an approved method of achieving immunity any more, but it's not new.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on July 02, 2020, 12:36:23 PM
Quote from: Caracal on July 02, 2020, 11:14:00 AM
This often ends up happening. Local agencies end up hearing rumors, believe they are true, and then amplify them. I really, really doubt this is happening.

Here's one that's true.  Guy attends BBQ.  A different person knows he has the virus yet attends the BBQ. Informs people after.  First guy dies after attending BBQ and getting virus.  So very sad.  The person who knew he was infected yet attended the BBQ should face a severe criminal penalty.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/us/california-thomas-macias-coronavirus/index.html
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on July 02, 2020, 04:11:44 PM
Looks like the "corona parties" story may not be fake after all.

"While my nursing staff was triaging patients for COVID-19 swabbing, they were told about the COVID-19 house parties and were even shown videos of the parties by college students," Peramsetty said.

"When students are called for results, we noticed that some were very excited and happy that they were positive, while others were very upset that they were negative."

https://www.tuscaloosanews.com/news/20200702/cases-rise-in-youth-amid-reports-of-rsquocovid-partiesrsquo
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 02, 2020, 04:19:18 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on July 02, 2020, 04:11:44 PM
Looks like the "corona parties" story may not be fake after all.

"While my nursing staff was triaging patients for COVID-19 swabbing, they were told about the COVID-19 house parties and were even shown videos of the parties by college students," Peramsetty said.

"When students are called for results, we noticed that some were very excited and happy that they were positive, while others were very upset that they were negative."

https://www.tuscaloosanews.com/news/20200702/cases-rise-in-youth-amid-reports-of-rsquocovid-partiesrsquo

This is not compelling evidence of anything but the fact that there are widespread rumors going around about this. Are these people mind readers? It actually potentially makes sense that a positive test wouldn't be bad news. Often, younger people get over it pretty quickly. If you were sick for a few days, got a test, and now are feeling much better, it makes sense that you'd actually sooner it turn out you did it have it. Now you likely have antibodies.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on July 02, 2020, 04:47:36 PM
Snippet from an email I got today:

Additionally, we will be providing cleaning supplies to each classroom to have you sanitize areas such as desks, chairs and door handles after each class.

Is anyone else being asked to do this?   Doesn't this also put me at a greater risk of infection?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on July 02, 2020, 04:54:31 PM
QuoteLooks like the "corona parties" story may not be fake after all.

"While my nursing staff was triaging patients for COVID-19 swabbing, they were told about the COVID-19 house parties and were even shown videos of the parties by college students," Peramsetty said.

"When students are called for results, we noticed that some were very excited and happy that they were positive, while others were very upset that they were negative."

https://www.tuscaloosanews.com/news/20200702/cases-rise-in-youth-amid-reports-of-rsquocovid-partiesrsquo

This is not compelling evidence of anything but the fact that there are widespread rumors going around about this.


The story made today's National News as well.  Doesnt mean it is true mind you... especially in the era of "fake news".

However, I would not be surprised that it is in fact true.
(Students selling tickets at a party, and the first to be diagnosed with COVID after the party wins the money).  Yep. I can absolutely see this going on at The University of Alabama (Roll Tide!!) 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on July 02, 2020, 05:00:04 PM
Quote from: Anselm on July 02, 2020, 04:47:36 PM
Snippet from an email I got today:

Additionally, we will be providing cleaning supplies to each classroom to have you sanitize areas such as desks, chairs and door handles after each class.

Is anyone else being asked to do this?   Doesn't this also put me at a greater risk of infection?

Hilarious.  Will you be paid extra for doing custodial services?  My university's cleaning "plans" are preposterous.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 02, 2020, 06:19:33 PM
Quote from: clean on July 02, 2020, 04:54:31 PM
QuoteLooks like the "corona parties" story may not be fake after all.

"While my nursing staff was triaging patients for COVID-19 swabbing, they were told about the COVID-19 house parties and were even shown videos of the parties by college students," Peramsetty said.

"When students are called for results, we noticed that some were very excited and happy that they were positive, while others were very upset that they were negative."

https://www.tuscaloosanews.com/news/20200702/cases-rise-in-youth-amid-reports-of-rsquocovid-partiesrsquo

This is not compelling evidence of anything but the fact that there are widespread rumors going around about this.


The story made today's National News as well.  Doesnt mean it is true mind you... especially in the era of "fake news".

However, I would not be surprised that it is in fact true.
(Students selling tickets at a party, and the first to be diagnosed with COVID after the party wins the money).  Yep. I can absolutely see this going on at The University of Alabama (Roll Tide!!)

I can just about promise you that it is complete BS.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on July 03, 2020, 07:22:46 AM
QuoteI can just about promise you that it is complete BS.

Let's hope so!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on July 03, 2020, 11:37:23 AM
Outbreak among UW students living in fraternity houses -- lots of positive tests for Covid-19.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/a-covid-19-outbreak-on-uws-greek-row-hints-at-how-hard-it-may-be-to-open-colleges-this-fall/ (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/a-covid-19-outbreak-on-uws-greek-row-hints-at-how-hard-it-may-be-to-open-colleges-this-fall/)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: rac on July 03, 2020, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: Anselm on July 02, 2020, 04:47:36 PM
Snippet from an email I got today:

Additionally, we will be providing cleaning supplies to each classroom to have you sanitize areas such as desks, chairs and door handles after each class.

Is anyone else being asked to do this?   Doesn't this also put me at a greater risk of infection?

Faculty and students are asked to do this at the beginning and end of each class. No guidance on how to enforce this.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on July 03, 2020, 03:34:00 PM
Summer II starts Monday. At 3:00 p.m. Thursday, University announced all classes will be online, except the handful of labs/clinicals that must be in person to meet licensure degree requirements.

Given the COVID-19 workplace modification requests coming in, our county's status as a hotspot, and our governor finally ordering face masks and partial re-closing, I'm not surprised. But today was chaos squared.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on July 06, 2020, 02:49:01 PM
One of my very good local summer students emailed me overnight, saying she's been sick for a week but her parents finally made her go to urgent care yesterday evening after her long bout of high fever wouldn't break.  She's waiting on results of her COVID test now. 

(She sent me the receipt, but I'd have believed her without it. She even turned in everything by 11:30 last night--after saying that she's "hoped" it's "just" been strep throat all week. Poor kid--she's really young and still lives at home while she's doing her gen ed classes at my CC. Her parents have both been laid off all spring, and she's been working extra shifts since April trying to help out.)

I hope she's OK.  As I told her, I'll work with her on an incomplete grade or whatever; I want her to take care of herself and not worry about my class.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on July 07, 2020, 04:18:30 AM
I just read that  The US government is giving Novavax 1.6 billion $ to mass produce an as-of-now not fully tested COVID-19 vaccine.  (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/health/novavax-coronavirus-vaccine-warp-speed.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage) Should we cheer or not so much? I am a little concerned that this massive investment before clinical trials are over could somehow motivate a skewed interpretation of the results of the trials or even somehow skew the trials themselves. I would like to believe that medicine is 100% apolitical objective science, but I already know that is not always the case. And I think it would be a disaster if an ineffective or unsafe vaccine were pushed through for political reasons. We already have enough anti-Vaxxers in this country!

What do you think?

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on July 07, 2020, 04:28:57 AM
I don't plan on taking a vaccine until it has been well tested for about 5 years.

There's so much pressure to rush out products that the profit motive will make any purported vaccine highly suspicious. Especially in the US.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on July 07, 2020, 05:16:19 AM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 04:28:57 AM
I don't plan on taking a vaccine until it has been well tested for about 5 years.

There's so much pressure to rush out products that the profit motive will make any purported vaccine highly suspicious. Especially in the US.

Yes, this is exactly what concerns me.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on July 07, 2020, 05:21:01 AM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 04:28:57 AM
I don't plan on taking a vaccine until it has been well tested for about 5 years.

There's so much pressure to rush out products that the profit motive will make any purported vaccine highly suspicious. Especially in the US.

Thalidomide, anyone? The clinical testing cycle is long for a reason. I'm slowly adjusting to living with a pandemic for several years.

I recently talked with a friend about vaccine development. Both of us received routine vaccines for measles as children, but neither received a chicken pox vaccine because there wasn't one until we were adults. We two non-scientists concluded that vaccine development might take a decade, so we'd better start building habits for living with a pandemic.

Today's tasks include rearranging foyer to accommodate clean face masks, hand sanitizer, and drop point for used face masks. It's easier to adopt habits like donning/doffing shoes and masks at the door if you make it convenient.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on July 07, 2020, 07:29:41 AM
WRT vaccines:  our oldest was of the age to get the first chickenpox vaccine when it came out.  I asked her pediatrician to give it to her, and he convinced me not to, not least because he had kids the same age as ours and wasn't letting them get it.  As he said, we know what chickenpox is, having both had bad cases ourselves when we were young, plus all the years and years of experience and observation by the medical community.  But he argued that not only did we not know all the side effects of the vaccine (even after extensive and non-rushed testing of it), we weren't even sure it would work (and anecdotally, a lot of kids in that kindergarten class had gotten the vaccine and still got bad cases of chickenpox in later years). 

Of course, COVID isn't the same thing, and nobody's awaiting an effective and safe vaccine more than I*, but just as a layman with a dusty biology BA and some common sense, I don't trust that this (first, rushed-to-the-market) one is going to be either.  Add to that the politics on all sides, plus the various unholy alliances of money, politics, and pharmaceutical companies, and . . . . nope.
--
*I've tried to be rational and have common sense throughout, although I will say I was worried back in, what, January?, when the first reports from China were in small print buried in the news.  However, the French report  (https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/d-fso052820.php)in late May saying that 1 in 10 diabetics admitted with COVID dies within 7 days scares me half to death. (And yes, I'm boiling that down to the scariest parts, but it does scare me.  Besides, Murphy's Law, plus my health issues of the past couple of years. . . . )
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on July 07, 2020, 08:58:15 AM
I'm generally very pro-vax, and you bet my kid is up to date with immunizations, but it's one thing when dealing with well-established vaccines for which we have plenty of real-world evidence on efficacy and safety (and a long history of improving the vaccine's safety and efficacy), but quite another when dealing with a new, highly rushed vaccine for a new disease. It's hard to imagine corners will not be cut given the huge potential market, political pressures to have an exit strategy and the promise of global media glory for whoever develops it first. The combo of little international cooperation in fighting covid and the WHO's failures and politicization mean that there will be little in the way of effective international oversight over anyone who claims to have a safe, effective vaccine. So I wouldn't give it to my child. If you're diabetic and in a nursing home in a hotspot, it makes sense to take your chances with a vaccine, but for a lot of people it won't. Which unfortunately means that even if the vaccine is safe and effective you won't have anything approaching herd immunity, because we're not the only ones who think that.
I kind of hope an effective treatment is developed first. The risk-benefit analysis would be pretty different than for a vaccine, and it would be an effective exit strategy, at least if combined with test-and-trace.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 09:08:42 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on July 07, 2020, 07:29:41 AM
WRT vaccines:  our oldest was of the age to get the first chickenpox vaccine when it came out.  I asked her pediatrician to give it to her, and he convinced me not to, not least because he had kids the same age as ours and wasn't letting them get it.  As he said, we know what chickenpox is, having both had bad cases ourselves when we were young, plus all the years and years of experience and observation by the medical community.  But he argued that not only did we not know all the side effects of the vaccine (even after extensive and non-rushed testing of it), we weren't even sure it would work (and anecdotally, a lot of kids in that kindergarten class had gotten the vaccine and still got bad cases of chickenpox in later years). 

Of course, COVID isn't the same thing, and nobody's awaiting an effective and safe vaccine more than I*, but just as a layman with a dusty biology BA and some common sense, I don't trust that this (first, rushed-to-the-market) one is going to be either.  Add to that the politics on all sides, plus the various unholy alliances of money, politics, and pharmaceutical companies, and . . . . nope.
--
*I've tried to be rational and have common sense throughout, although I will say I was worried back in, what, January?, when the first reports from China were in small print buried in the news.  However, the French report  (https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/d-fso052820.php)in late May saying that 1 in 10 diabetics admitted with COVID dies within 7 days scares me half to death. (And yes, I'm boiling that down to the scariest parts, but it does scare me.  Besides, Murphy's Law, plus my health issues of the past couple of years. . . . )

For those who don't plan on taking a vaccine, I'm betting you won't be able to keep your job without one. If there is an effective way to prevent Covid infections, who would want to allow someone to spread it at colleges to people who might have immune conditions preventing them from getting a vaccine?

Your concerns are also not well founded. The vaccines are obviously being developed quickly, but they are being developed with trials and testing. Before any vaccine is going to go to market, it has to go through multiple stages of trials. They first test them on a small number of people to make sure there aren't any obvious side effects and that they produce antibodies, they then scale up to a few hundred to a thousand to do those on a larger scale, and then they do large scale trials to check both effectiveness at preventing illness and infection, as well as any rarer reactions or dangers.

The testing is why development isn't instantaneous. There already are at least thirty Covid vaccines that have been created. Nobody is getting them outside trials, yet, because you have to make sure they are safe and effective enough first. That's what takes time. I'm sure I will not be first in line for any vaccine, but I'd certainly get it whenever I had the opportunity. I find it kind of stunning that anybody without a condition which would make a vaccine inadvisable wouldn't feel that way.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 09:09:46 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on July 07, 2020, 08:58:15 AM
I wouldn't give it to my child. If you're diabetic and in a nursing home in a hotspot, it makes sense to take your chances with a vaccine, but for a lot of people it won't. Which unfortunately means that even if the vaccine is safe and effective you won't have anything approaching herd immunity, because we're not the only ones who think that.


Jesus. I'd hope that the moment it became available, the school my kid attended would require it. I'm not interested in having my kid get infected and transmit the virus to me or family members more vulnerable because others have vague, not very well thought out worries.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ab_grp on July 07, 2020, 09:55:27 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on July 07, 2020, 07:29:41 AM
WRT vaccines:  our oldest was of the age to get the first chickenpox vaccine when it came out.  I asked her pediatrician to give it to her, and he convinced me not to, not least because he had kids the same age as ours and wasn't letting them get it.  As he said, we know what chickenpox is, having both had bad cases ourselves when we were young, plus all the years and years of experience and observation by the medical community.  But he argued that not only did we not know all the side effects of the vaccine (even after extensive and non-rushed testing of it), we weren't even sure it would work (and anecdotally, a lot of kids in that kindergarten class had gotten the vaccine and still got bad cases of chickenpox in later years). 

Just wanted to add that I had the same experience when my eldest daughter was offered the vaccine.  As you say, this is a different situation, but hopefully there will be solid guidance in this case as well.  I have one daughter in college and one in high school, and I hope there will be an effective vaccine coming.  Daughter who just started her first job as a nurse two weeks ago has already had a somewhat lengthy exposure to a patient who apparently had the virus and had come into contact with many, many folks at the hospital.  I'm sure that's not uncommon, unfortunately.  I am cautiously optimistic, but we'll see.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 10:16:59 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on July 07, 2020, 07:29:41 AM
WRT vaccines:  our oldest was of the age to get the first chickenpox vaccine when it came out.  I asked her pediatrician to give it to her, and he convinced me not to, not least because he had kids the same age as ours and wasn't letting them get it.  As he said, we know what chickenpox is, having both had bad cases ourselves when we were young, plus all the years and years of experience and observation by the medical community.  But he argued that not only did we not know all the side effects of the vaccine (even after extensive and non-rushed testing of it), we weren't even sure it would work (and anecdotally, a lot of kids in that kindergarten class had gotten the vaccine and still got bad cases of chickenpox in later years). 

BTW, the Chicken Pox vaccine is very safe and quite effective. Sounds like you had a bad doctor.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ab_grp on July 07, 2020, 10:34:02 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 10:16:59 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on July 07, 2020, 07:29:41 AM
WRT vaccines:  our oldest was of the age to get the first chickenpox vaccine when it came out.  I asked her pediatrician to give it to her, and he convinced me not to, not least because he had kids the same age as ours and wasn't letting them get it.  As he said, we know what chickenpox is, having both had bad cases ourselves when we were young, plus all the years and years of experience and observation by the medical community.  But he argued that not only did we not know all the side effects of the vaccine (even after extensive and non-rushed testing of it), we weren't even sure it would work (and anecdotally, a lot of kids in that kindergarten class had gotten the vaccine and still got bad cases of chickenpox in later years). 

BTW, the Chicken Pox vaccine is very safe and quite effective. Sounds like you had a bad doctor.

AmLitHist and I may be talking about similar time periods, not very recent in my case at least.  I don't think my daughter's doctor was a bad doctor at all.  She just didn't think it was good to give the vaccine at that time.  Out of curiosity, have you never had a doctor that recommended against a vaccine, test, procedure, or treatment even temporarily? I have. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on July 07, 2020, 10:37:25 AM
I've been sitting in on a series of Covid webinars put on by the American Public Health Association and the National Academies of Medicine.

The level of cooperation studying vaccines is probably better than posters up-thread believe.  And the design of the trials is different as well.  There are dozens of trials underway, and not all of them are using a placebo arm since data sharing among research groups allows the placebo data from a few trials to be generalized more broadly.  There are about 6-8 different types of vaccines being looked at as well and the innovation behind them is much more creative than the usual killed/live attenuated/sub-unit vaccines we are used to seeing. There are also likely to be some very unique trials where healthy, young volunteers receive a vaccine and are then voluntarily infected.  Long story short, this ain't your grandpa's science anymore.

The bigger issue for vaccines is less likely to be safety and efficacy than it is for availability.  The contract to provide 100 million doses means the manufacturer needs to source 100 million vials, 100 million stoppers, 100 million packages, 100 million package inserts.  Best case scenario may be that there will be an available vaccine for emergency use in an outbreak by late 2020 (e.g. ER and ICU staff in a replay of the chaos we saw in NYC).  Availability for the general public is still some ways off - probably mid to late 2021 at the very earliest.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 10:56:40 AM
Quote from: ab_grp on July 07, 2020, 10:34:02 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 10:16:59 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on July 07, 2020, 07:29:41 AM
WRT vaccines:  our oldest was of the age to get the first chickenpox vaccine when it came out.  I asked her pediatrician to give it to her, and he convinced me not to, not least because he had kids the same age as ours and wasn't letting them get it.  As he said, we know what chickenpox is, having both had bad cases ourselves when we were young, plus all the years and years of experience and observation by the medical community.  But he argued that not only did we not know all the side effects of the vaccine (even after extensive and non-rushed testing of it), we weren't even sure it would work (and anecdotally, a lot of kids in that kindergarten class had gotten the vaccine and still got bad cases of chickenpox in later years). 

BTW, the Chicken Pox vaccine is very safe and quite effective. Sounds like you had a bad doctor.

AmLitHist and I may be talking about similar time periods, not very recent in my case at least.  I don't think my daughter's doctor was a bad doctor at all.  She just didn't think it was good to give the vaccine at that time.  Out of curiosity, have you never had a doctor that recommended against a vaccine, test, procedure, or treatment even temporarily? I have.

To modify slightly, it doesn't sound like it was a very good recommendation, or that the worry was based on much sound science. Doctors make mistakes too.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on July 07, 2020, 11:02:07 AM
It's not possible to study the long term effects of a new medication without waiting a long time. I'll wait until the long term effects are known.

There is the question of how much to trust the pharmaceutical industry. Given the history of the last 50 years, I have very little trust in them. That's not to say I don't take any meds -- I do, occasionally. I even get a flu shot most years. Some medication does save lives. But the industry has failed to keep research pure: lots of cases of science being perverted by the demand to make profits. There have been far too many cases of new drugs first being approved and then later withdrawn because of their dangers.

The issue of whether universities can require faculty to have immunizations is not a simple one. There's an interesting link here about it. https://laborandemploymentlawupdate.com/2019/11/12/navigating-the-legal-risks-of-a-mandatory-vaccine-program-for-employees/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on July 07, 2020, 11:15:48 AM
FWIW, almost everyone else in my family is a physician, including both my parents, and they've occasionally advised against certain vaccinations. In one case from a while ago which I only vaguely remember, they were concerned about the adjuvant used and did not think the risks associated with it outweighed the risks associated with the illness. (The adjuvant wasn't aluminum, it was something more unusual, but that's as much as I remember.)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 11:21:28 AM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 11:02:07 AM
It's not possible to study the long term effects of a new medication without waiting a long time. I'll wait until the long term effects are known.


That's nice. But are you living in a cave? And do you plan to just remain there for the next five years?

I'll defer to the experts who I'm pretty sure will tell you the same thing, but just because a vaccine is new, doesn't mean we are doing some brand new thing with totally unknown risks. The risks would presumably be similar to those of other vaccines. Vaccines can cause certain kinds of short term reactions, but I've never heard of any long term ones that would only surface years later. A vaccine is not likely to cause higher rates of cancer, or heart disease years down the road because one never has and I don't think there's any real mechanism for that to happen.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on July 07, 2020, 11:27:54 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 11:21:28 AM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 11:02:07 AM
It's not possible to study the long term effects of a new medication without waiting a long time. I'll wait until the long term effects are known.


That's nice. But are you living in a cave? And do you plan to just remain there for the next five years?

I'll defer to the experts who I'm pretty sure will tell you the same thing, but just because a vaccine is new, doesn't mean we are doing some brand new thing with totally unknown risks. The risks would presumably be similar to those of other vaccines. Vaccines can cause certain kinds of short term reactions, but I've never heard of any long term ones that would only surface years later. A vaccine is not likely to cause higher rates of cancer, or heart disease years down the road because one never has and I don't think there's any real mechanism for that to happen.

One question about the future is what proportion of the population will get a vaccine if it becomes available. Given the resistance to ones that have been proven safe, I expect that there will be plenty of reluctance in the population, for good and bad reasons, to take the new one.
This news item says only half of Americans would get one. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-half-americans-would-get/
So public policy won't be able to assume that everyone is getting the vaccine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 11:40:28 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 07, 2020, 11:15:48 AM
FWIW, almost everyone else in my family is a physician, including both my parents, and they've occasionally advised against certain vaccinations. In one case from a while ago which I only vaguely remember, they were concerned about the adjuvant used and did not think the risks associated with it outweighed the risks associated with the illness. (The adjuvant wasn't aluminum, it was something more unusual, but that's as much as I remember.)

I'm not really eager to wade into the medical practice part of this, but in general terms vaccines are incredibly heavily regulated and ones that are approved for broad use are very safe. Obviously, you don't want to vaccinate someone for yellow fever unless they are planning to travel to a place where it is endemic. However, that's what the vaccine schedule is for. The vaccines on there all have very low risk of side effects and are needed.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 11:44:00 AM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 11:27:54 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 11:21:28 AM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 11:02:07 AM
It's not possible to study the long term effects of a new medication without waiting a long time. I'll wait until the long term effects are known.


That's nice. But are you living in a cave? And do you plan to just remain there for the next five years?

I'll defer to the experts who I'm pretty sure will tell you the same thing, but just because a vaccine is new, doesn't mean we are doing some brand new thing with totally unknown risks. The risks would presumably be similar to those of other vaccines. Vaccines can cause certain kinds of short term reactions, but I've never heard of any long term ones that would only surface years later. A vaccine is not likely to cause higher rates of cancer, or heart disease years down the road because one never has and I don't think there's any real mechanism for that to happen.

One question about the future is what proportion of the population will get a vaccine if it becomes available. Given the resistance to ones that have been proven safe, I expect that there will be plenty of reluctance in the population, for good and bad reasons, to take the new one.
This news item says only half of Americans would get one. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-half-americans-would-get/
So public policy won't be able to assume that everyone is getting the vaccine.

So, what you seem to be saying is that you would, for not very good reasons, refuse to get a vaccine. Then you point out that your refusal to do so, could mean that lots of people remain vulnerable to COVID and can continue to infect people with certain conditions which might make it impossible for them to get a vaccine, and might also put them at much higher risk of dying from Covid?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on July 07, 2020, 12:04:47 PM
Quote from: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 11:44:00 AM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 11:27:54 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 11:21:28 AM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 11:02:07 AM
It's not possible to study the long term effects of a new medication without waiting a long time. I'll wait until the long term effects are known.


That's nice. But are you living in a cave? And do you plan to just remain there for the next five years?

I'll defer to the experts who I'm pretty sure will tell you the same thing, but just because a vaccine is new, doesn't mean we are doing some brand new thing with totally unknown risks. The risks would presumably be similar to those of other vaccines. Vaccines can cause certain kinds of short term reactions, but I've never heard of any long term ones that would only surface years later. A vaccine is not likely to cause higher rates of cancer, or heart disease years down the road because one never has and I don't think there's any real mechanism for that to happen.

One question about the future is what proportion of the population will get a vaccine if it becomes available. Given the resistance to ones that have been proven safe, I expect that there will be plenty of reluctance in the population, for good and bad reasons, to take the new one.
This news item says only half of Americans would get one. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-half-americans-would-get/
So public policy won't be able to assume that everyone is getting the vaccine.

So, what you seem to be saying is that you would, for not very good reasons, refuse to get a vaccine. Then you point out that your refusal to do so, could mean that lots of people remain vulnerable to COVID and can continue to infect people with certain conditions which might make it impossible for them to get a vaccine, and might also put them at much higher risk of dying from Covid?

Obviously I believe my reasons for not getting the vaccine are good ones.

So that's not what I'm saying. It's your take on it, which I believe to be misguided.

There will be the issue of minimizing risk to others, which I will do, as I do now. That may well mean avoiding contact with others.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 01:01:13 PM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 12:04:47 PM

There will be the issue of minimizing risk to others, which I will do, as I do now. That may well mean avoiding contact with others.

Oh ok, so you'll quit your job if it requires teaching in person? Refuse to come to meetings? Not have any person relationships with other people? For the next five years?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on July 07, 2020, 01:08:36 PM
Not everyone gets the flu shot.  Yes, I know, COVID isn't the flu.

Vaccine discussions are kind of premature.  No one knows what is going to happen or when.  Focus on today.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on July 07, 2020, 01:16:38 PM
Quote from: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 01:01:13 PM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 12:04:47 PM

There will be the issue of minimizing risk to others, which I will do, as I do now. That may well mean avoiding contact with others.

Oh ok, so you'll quit your job if it requires teaching in person? Refuse to come to meetings? Not have any person relationships with other people? For the next five years?

There will be some negotiation if it comes to that.

This is all assuming a good vaccine becomes available.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 01:17:47 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on July 07, 2020, 01:08:36 PM
Not everyone gets the flu shot.  Yes, I know, COVID isn't the flu.

Vaccine discussions are kind of premature.  No one knows what is going to happen or when.  Focus on today.

Indeed, but I find it frustrating when people say ridiculous things and pretend they are being reasonable.  It would be much better if everyone did get the flu shot...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on July 07, 2020, 01:33:53 PM
Quote from: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 09:09:46 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on July 07, 2020, 08:58:15 AM
I wouldn't give it to my child. If you're diabetic and in a nursing home in a hotspot, it makes sense to take your chances with a vaccine, but for a lot of people it won't. Which unfortunately means that even if the vaccine is safe and effective you won't have anything approaching herd immunity, because we're not the only ones who think that.


Jesus. I'd hope that the moment it became available, the school my kid attended would require it. I'm not interested in having my kid get infected and transmit the virus to me or family members more vulnerable because others have vague, not very well thought out worries.

I would have a lot more faith in the FDA (I'm presuming you're in the US?) than in my local authorities. Unlike "normal" vaccines, the financial, political and reputational pressures and rewards create huge incentives to cut corners which isn't the case with other new vaccines, nor with any well-established vaccines. To clarify, I'm not saying I'd never take a corona vaccine, but I wouldn't want to take it if newly approved, unlike regular childhood vaccines or the flu shot (which have been shown to be safe and effective "in the wild").  The incentives to cut corners are just too great for me to trust without evidence of its success "in the wild." The longer a corona vaccine would've been in use without obvious problems the more I'd trust it, of course.
If you look at it globally, there are already lots of instances of false/misleading/mistaken directives, coverups, etc, related to this pandemic, coming from governments, national health authorities, etc. From China denying that person-to-person transmission was even possible (and we'll jail anyone who says otherwise!) to "it's just a little cold (and I will fire my health ministers until I find one that will agree)" (Brazil - although Sweden hasn't been all that different) to "shrines will become centers of healing" (Iran) to "two-dollar bills and Jesus stamps ward it off" (Mexico). If national authorities fail to ensure a vaccine is safe and effective, there's really nothing else, no other "fuse" - the WHO is so spineless they can't even bring themselves to say "Taiwan." None of this bodes well for places without highly trustworthy local health authorities.
Also, vaccines do improve over time - more effective vaccines with fewer side effects tend to be produced for the same disease as time passes.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 07, 2020, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 11:27:54 AM

This news item says only half of Americans would get one. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-half-americans-would-get/
So public policy won't be able to assume that everyone is getting the vaccine.

More specifically, 67% of those over 65 say they would, while only 40% of those who are younger would.  Wonder how that compares with flu vaccines?  It sounds like typical "young invincible" thinking.

More disturbingly, the poll indicates that only 25% of black respondents would take the vaccine.  Any ideas why that would be so?  Mistrust of the medical profession?  Fears that the vaccine would be too expensive?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on July 07, 2020, 02:00:46 PM
Quote from: apl68 on July 07, 2020, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 11:27:54 AM

This news item says only half of Americans would get one. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-half-americans-would-get/
So public policy won't be able to assume that everyone is getting the vaccine.

More specifically, 67% of those over 65 say they would, while only 40% of those who are younger would.  Wonder how that compares with flu vaccines?  It sounds like typical "young invincible" thinking.

More disturbingly, the poll indicates that only 25% of black respondents would take the vaccine.  Any ideas why that would be so?  Mistrust of the medical profession?  Fears that the vaccine would be too expensive?

Probably both. There is certainly extensive mistrust of the medical profession among African Americans.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on July 07, 2020, 02:57:32 PM
I didn't mean to set off the shitstorm that seems to have ensued after my observation about the chickenpox vaccine back in 1989. People's experiences and reasons for doing things vary, and I'm not calling anyone else stupid or unreasonable (or a bad doctor) for the decisions the various "you"s here might choose to make. I'd appreciate the same consideration and respect. I simply shared a somewhat-related story from my own past experience. (And yes, my girls did get all their other routine shots, including the hepatitis B and HPV vaccines.)

Once a vaccine is available and proven (as much as possible) to be safe and effective, I'll get one. I don't do a lot of social contact in normal times, aside from going to work and the occasional trip to a store, and even those have been cut way down since mid-March when my college went online; I can count on my fingers how often I've been around people in that time, always N95 masked and gloved. So it's not like I'm going to be much of a vector while I wait, as I'm not particularly at risk to be exposed or to expose anyone else.

And yes, if it comes to "get the vaccine or get fired" while my physician is telling me not to do so, let them fire me. Between my family history of various conditions, my own health, and comingthisclose last year to dying of a MRSA infection that went from a barely visible scratch to full-blown sepsis and near-organ shutdown in a matter of about 36 hours, I'm not playing around. I've medically aged about 15 years over the past 18 months, and while my worries might not be objectively rational, it's my decision.  Every vaccine has side effects, and until it's clear what this one's are, I'm not taking chances and setting off another cascade of problems that gets out of control. It can happen easily enough to me as it is.

According to these fora, "YMMV" and "SPADFY."  So I guess the tl;dr version is:  forget I said anything, and let's do something productive with our time instead.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on July 07, 2020, 03:46:13 PM
My fat hairy tuchus is going to be first in line if a vaccine comes available. 

What I'm reading here is just the usual anti big pharma,  vaccine hesitancy paranoia.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on July 07, 2020, 04:15:13 PM
I'd distinguish between nonsense scares such as vaccines causing autism and the well documented failures of American medicine that have been investigated by scholars.

Of course, you can dismiss a view you don't like as nuts. But there's plenty of reason to be sceptical about medical trends in the US. When you add the highly politicized situation and the basic failure of government to work with the medical establishment in much of the US regarding COVID, it seems risky to me to rush to take the first vaccine that gets approved and pushed to the public.

At the very least, I'm going to see what is happening in countries where they make more rational decisions and the profit motive does not dominate everything.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hibush on July 07, 2020, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 02:00:46 PM
Quote from: apl68 on July 07, 2020, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 11:27:54 AM

This news item says only half of Americans would get one. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-half-americans-would-get/
So public policy won't be able to assume that everyone is getting the vaccine.

More specifically, 67% of those over 65 say they would, while only 40% of those who are younger would.  Wonder how that compares with flu vaccines?  It sounds like typical "young invincible" thinking.

More disturbingly, the poll indicates that only 25% of black respondents would take the vaccine.  Any ideas why that would be so?  Mistrust of the medical profession?  Fears that the vaccine would be too expensive?

Probably both. There is certainly extensive mistrust of the medical profession among African Americans.

To what extent does that contribute to differential health outcomes? Lesser care-> poorer outcomes -> greater mistrust -> even poorer health outcomes from missing good care
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 07, 2020, 04:57:09 PM
Quote from: AmLitHist on July 07, 2020, 02:57:32 PM


According to these fora, "YMMV" and "SPADFY."  So I guess the tl;dr version is:  forget I said anything, and let's do something productive with our time instead.

To be clear, if you or your doctor is concerned that a vaccine could pose too much of a risk, that's very different from someone just saying they won't be vaccinated for this more generally. But, I'm with Secondum Artem. In theory I'm not in a high risk group, but I'd like to not get Covid, worry about getting Covid, or worry about giving Covid to anyone else, thanks very much. I wish I could stop worrying about those things sooner than I probably will. As far as safety, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think some of these vaccines could have slightly higher risks of side effects, known and unknown. The good thing is that it isn't just the US government who is going to be scrutinizing any vaccines.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on July 07, 2020, 05:13:09 PM
The biology teachers I know tell me that if they do find a vaccine then we will have to get it every year since we can't get lifelong immunity against an RNA virus. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on July 08, 2020, 12:33:43 AM
Quote from: Anselm on July 07, 2020, 05:13:09 PM
The biology teachers I know tell me that if they do find a vaccine then we will have to get it every year since we can't get lifelong immunity against an RNA virus.

So? I get a flu shot every year.

I'll also get vaccinated as soon as I'm able too. And I live in Australia.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on July 08, 2020, 03:20:36 AM
U.S. church services are super-spreader environments:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/coronavirus-churches-outbreaks.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/coronavirus-churches-outbreaks.html).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on July 08, 2020, 04:30:04 AM
SPADFY?   I googled but can't find the meaning.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: OneMoreYear on July 08, 2020, 04:43:21 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on July 08, 2020, 04:30:04 AM
SPADFY?   I googled but can't find the meaning.

Some people are different from you
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 08, 2020, 07:41:04 AM
Quote from: spork on July 08, 2020, 03:20:36 AM
U.S. church services are super-spreader environments:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/coronavirus-churches-outbreaks.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/coronavirus-churches-outbreaks.html).

The headline notes "more than 650 cases have been linked to reopened religious facilities."  That's a few hundred out of how many tens of thousands of new cases nationwide during the same period?  These occasional outbreaks are a tragedy for the churches involved, but they're only a drop in the bucket compared to the spread at bars, beaches, and parties.  Or at essential businesses like food processing plants.

At the churches that I'm familiar with--and I'm familiar with quite a few from various sources--there has been general compliance with social distancing and mask guidelines.  I see greater compliance with mask guidelines in local churches than I do in stores.  From what I've seen, churchgoers are by and larger taking this virus business more seriously than the general population, not less.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 07:53:31 AM
Quote from: apl68 on July 08, 2020, 07:41:04 AM
[ they're only a drop in the bucket compared to the spread at bars, beaches, and parties.

Not beaches. Beaches aren't particularly dangerous places. They are outside. We should be encouraging people to go to beaches.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 08:10:29 AM
Quote from: Anselm on July 07, 2020, 05:13:09 PM
The biology teachers I know tell me that if they do find a vaccine then we will have to get it every year since we can't get lifelong immunity against an RNA virus.

My understanding is that it is a bit more complicated than that and there are more unknowns. From what I understand from reading virologists, there are different kinds of antibodies and they work in different ways. People can have substantial protection against viruses without being immune to them. You might still be able to get infected, but you could be protected against serious illness. Flu mutates in particular ways that Covid viruses don't.

Part of the advantage of having all of these different vaccine candidates is that even successful vaccines might really vary in what they do and the kind of protection they offer. Apparently, it is possible, for example, that some vaccines could prevent people from getting very sick, but not prevent them from getting and transmitting the virus.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on July 08, 2020, 08:25:26 AM
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but the correct phrasing isn't "Coronavirus doesn't do that", it's "Coronavirus isn't know to do that".

[Insert Donald Rumsfeld meme about unknown unknowns].

See, for example, CDC and WHO today admitting "evidence" of Aerosol spread.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 08:47:27 AM
Quote from: FishProf on July 08, 2020, 08:25:26 AM
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but the correct phrasing isn't "Coronavirus doesn't do that", it's "Coronavirus isn't know to do that".

[Insert Donald Rumsfeld meme about unknown unknowns].

See, for example, CDC and WHO today admitting "evidence" of Aerosol spread.

Sure, although from what I've read the aerosol thing is sort of a technical and terminology debate and doesn't really change much in terms of the actual guidance. Spending lots of time in crowded indoor spaces is dangerous.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on July 08, 2020, 08:53:28 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 08:47:27 AM
Quote from: FishProf on July 08, 2020, 08:25:26 AM
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but the correct phrasing isn't "Coronavirus doesn't do that", it's "Coronavirus isn't know to do that".

[Insert Donald Rumsfeld meme about unknown unknowns].

See, for example, CDC and WHO today admitting "evidence" of Aerosol spread.

Sure, although from what I've read the aerosol thing is sort of a technical and terminology debate and doesn't really change much in terms of the actual guidance. Spending lots of time in crowded indoor spaces is dangerous.

It would very much matter in a building with HVAC and common air circulation.  It's the difference between being in the same room as an infected person being a risk, and being in the same building being a risk.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 09:22:41 AM
Quote from: FishProf on July 08, 2020, 08:53:28 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 08:47:27 AM
Quote from: FishProf on July 08, 2020, 08:25:26 AM
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but the correct phrasing isn't "Coronavirus doesn't do that", it's "Coronavirus isn't know to do that".

[Insert Donald Rumsfeld meme about unknown unknowns].

See, for example, CDC and WHO today admitting "evidence" of Aerosol spread.

Sure, although from what I've read the aerosol thing is sort of a technical and terminology debate and doesn't really change much in terms of the actual guidance. Spending lots of time in crowded indoor spaces is dangerous.

It would very much matter in a building with HVAC and common air circulation.  It's the difference between being in the same room as an infected person being a risk, and being in the same building being a risk.

Right, but it isn't really a risk. This is a good explanation.
https://twitter.com/BillHanage/status/1279578191745683457
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on July 08, 2020, 10:02:01 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 09:22:41 AM
Right, but it isn't really a risk. This is a good explanation.
https://twitter.com/BillHanage/status/1279578191745683457

It was?  I read a lot of criticism about different approaches.   Maybe I missed it. What did you think was a particularly clear statement of what an aerosol is and how Covid is or isn't that?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 10:22:39 AM
Quote from: FishProf on July 08, 2020, 10:02:01 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 09:22:41 AM
Right, but it isn't really a risk. This is a good explanation.
https://twitter.com/BillHanage/status/1279578191745683457

It was?  I read a lot of criticism about different approaches.   Maybe I missed it. What did you think was a particularly clear statement of what an aerosol is and how Covid is or isn't that?

That's the point. People hear aerosol and think that you need to worry about spread through HVAC systems. That isn't true, it can't  travel long distances on air columns before getting too diluted.

"Most transmission is close range close contact. A mountain of evidence

We can limit transmission by limiting contacts (distancing), and the risk of transmission given a contact (masks probably help), and avoid superspreading events by not giving the virus the chance."

Basically, in crowded spaces, it seems possible that the virus can build up in the air and infect people. That reinforces the guidance about avoiding crowded indoor spaces. It doesn't change the basic routes of transmission. You're not going to get the virus sitting in your office through the vent.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 08, 2020, 10:30:55 AM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 04:15:13 PM
I'd distinguish between nonsense scares such as vaccines causing autism and the well documented failures of American medicine that have been investigated by scholars.


Here's my question, then:

Are there any cases on record of new vaccines that have proven dangerous due to being rushed out too quickly?  Is there a precedent for this being a problem?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on July 08, 2020, 10:59:40 AM
Quote from: apl68 on July 08, 2020, 10:30:55 AM
Quote from: downer on July 07, 2020, 04:15:13 PM
I'd distinguish between nonsense scares such as vaccines causing autism and the well documented failures of American medicine that have been investigated by scholars.


Here's my question, then:

Are there any cases on record of new vaccines that have proven dangerous due to being rushed out too quickly?  Is there a precedent for this being a problem?

Good question. There haven't been major issues with vaccines. Many that were recalled due to safety concerns turned out to be safe. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html

So there's not a lot of reason to be scared of vaccines per se. Of course, the ones used so far have been well tested.

From what I've seen, there are many different groups working independently and even competitively to discover a COVID vaccine. I will want to know a lot about whatever new vaccine they come up with and how similar it is to previous ones.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on July 08, 2020, 11:11:18 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 10:22:39 AM
Quote from: FishProf on July 08, 2020, 10:02:01 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 09:22:41 AM
Right, but it isn't really a risk. This is a good explanation.
https://twitter.com/BillHanage/status/1279578191745683457

It was?  I read a lot of criticism about different approaches.   Maybe I missed it. What did you think was a particularly clear statement of what an aerosol is and how Covid is or isn't that?

That's the point. People hear aerosol and think that you need to worry about spread through HVAC systems. That isn't true, it can't  travel long distances on air columns before getting too diluted.

"Most transmission is close range close contact. A mountain of evidence

We can limit transmission by limiting contacts (distancing), and the risk of transmission given a contact (masks probably help), and avoid superspreading events by not giving the virus the chance."

Basically, in crowded spaces, it seems possible that the virus can build up in the air and infect people. That reinforces the guidance about avoiding crowded indoor spaces. It doesn't change the basic routes of transmission. You're not going to get the virus sitting in your office through the vent.

I think we are making different points.  We (not you and I) went from "Surfaces are the thing to worry about" (apparently not so much) to "It's transmitted in droplets, so six feet is sufficient to separate", to "It's an aerosol, so it can hang in the air".   The message shouldn't be "It doesn't do this", it shoulb "we don;t know it to do that".

Also, when I read up on HVAC issues, I get HVAC experts saying "it won't go through the HVAC system, as it isn't an aerosol."  So, when I read that it IS, that makes me question the assurance we just received.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 12:01:09 PM
Quote from: FishProf on July 08, 2020, 11:11:18 AM


I think we are making different points.  We (not you and I) went from "Surfaces are the thing to worry about" (apparently not so much) to "It's transmitted in droplets, so six feet is sufficient to separate", to "It's an aerosol, so it can hang in the air".   The message shouldn't be "It doesn't do this", it shoulb "we don;t know it to do that".

Also, when I read up on HVAC issues, I get HVAC experts saying "it won't go through the HVAC system, as it isn't an aerosol."  So, when I read that it IS, that makes me question the assurance we just received.

Right, but I think we are back to the the terminology problem. That thread pointed out that basically there is a continuum from large droplet to aerosol. So, just because the virus might technically be spread by aerosol in some situations, doesn't mean that it can, in normal conditions, infect people through HVAC systems.

The broader point is that the things to worry about are the most common routes of transmission, not very unusual ones. The patterns of spread show pretty clearly that the virus spreads through indoor,  crowded spaces and close contacts for prolonged periods of time.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on July 08, 2020, 12:10:22 PM
I don't disagree with what you wrote.  But it raises the question (which I am not qualified to answer): If this is just semantics, why are there scientists calling for the WHO to change its stance, and (invert the question) why is the WHO reluctant to do so?

At my school, they are acting as if transmission is primarily through contacts, and secondarily through droplets, and NOT AT ALL via aerosols.  It won't (probably) pass through filtered ventilation systems, but what about crowded hallways?  Or even uncrowded hallways if it hangs in the air.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on July 08, 2020, 12:28:08 PM
Many newer buildings have windows that do not open.  How did that ever make sense?  Certainly a shame now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on July 08, 2020, 12:46:56 PM
The very first smallpox vaccines sometimes killed people (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-50713991 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-50713991)) - obviously smallpox also killed or maimed many people, but the early vaccines were "safe" only in comparison with an extremely dangerous pathogen, much more dangerous than covid. Older flu shots often produced a reaction severe enough that it was dubious whether people who tended to get severe reactions were better off, individually, getting the flu shot or taking their chances with the flu. Covid is not the flu (neither is it smallpox) but there is precedent of new vaccines having genuine dangers. I'm sure normal modern approval processes are more stringent than those in Victorian Britain (or even those around when the flu shot first came out), but these aren't normal circumstances. The scenario I personally fear is someone I don't trust (like China) exporting corona vaccines to my country and basically being asked to have faith in "my" government's "seal of approval." For that matter, I wouldn't trust that my government refusing to approve a vaccine would be evidence-based, either.
Or putting the probabilities another way, very crudely: if the death rate from covid is 1%, then any treatment with less than 1% chance of killing the patient is worthwhile, in principle. If you're well under 60 and in good chance, your chance of dying from covid is in principle well below 1% so treatment is worthwhile only worthwhile if the chance of it killing you is still less than of covid killing you. But for a vaccine, to make it worthwhile generally the chance of it killing you must be less than chance of getting covid times chance of dying of covid given you have it - and that's assuming 100% efficacy in preventing death due to covid. I'm well below 60 and in good health, and everyone in my household is taking fairly stringent precautions. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 12:58:24 PM
Quote from: FishProf on July 08, 2020, 12:10:22 PM
I don't disagree with what you wrote.  But it raises the question (which I am not qualified to answer): If this is just semantics, why are there scientists calling for the WHO to change its stance, and (invert the question) why is the WHO reluctant to do so?


I don't understand much about the details, but it actually seems like a very familiar sort of academic dispute. There's this term, or idea, or theory that people invest a lot in. In this case, "Aerosol," but it could be "agency" or "postmodern" or something else. Then you have various disputes about the term and its meaning. There are legitimate real issues involved, but sometimes those actual issues get lost in fights over what exactly the term means and whether it is being correctly applied. I can think of lots of examples in my own field where increasingly arcane disputes over whether something is x or y have gotten in the way of trying to understand what was actually happening. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 01:21:41 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on July 08, 2020, 12:46:56 PM
The very first smallpox vaccines sometimes killed people (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-50713991 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-50713991)) - obviously smallpox also killed or maimed many people, but the early vaccines were "safe" only in comparison with an extremely dangerous pathogen, much more dangerous than covid. Older flu shots often produced a reaction severe enough that it was dubious whether people who tended to get severe reactions were better off, individually, getting the flu shot or taking their chances with the flu. Covid is not the flu (neither is it smallpox) but there is precedent of new vaccines having genuine dangers. I'm sure normal modern approval processes are more stringent than those in Victorian Britain (or even those around when the flu shot first came out), but these aren't normal circumstances. The scenario I personally fear is someone I don't trust (like China) exporting corona vaccines to my country and basically being asked to have faith in "my" government's "seal of approval." For that matter, I wouldn't trust that my government refusing to approve a vaccine would be evidence-based, either.
Or putting the probabilities another way, very crudely: if the death rate from covid is 1%, then any treatment with less than 1% chance of killing the patient is worthwhile, in principle. If you're well under 60 and in good chance, your chance of dying from covid is in principle well below 1% so treatment is worthwhile only worthwhile if the chance of it killing you is still less than of covid killing you. But for a vaccine, to make it worthwhile generally the chance of it killing you must be less than chance of getting covid times chance of dying of covid given you have it - and that's assuming 100% efficacy in preventing death due to covid. I'm well below 60 and in good health, and everyone in my household is taking fairly stringent precautions.

Nothing that approaches any of those numbers would ever be seen as acceptable. Look, skepticism is fine if you have actual evidence to back it up. If a vaccine became available, but only the US approved it and other countries expressed reservations, or if lots of trustworthy experts said they didn't trust the data about its safety, I would obviously have to think about it. However, that's really different from just uninformed skepticism where you just say that you generally would not trust a hypothetical vaccine, despite the fact that the vaccine would go through extensive trials and there are clear protocols in place to make sure it would be safe.

I also just don't fundamentally don't understand the point about taking precautions. I'm taking a lot of precautions too. and I'm resigned to the fact that I'm going to have to for quite some time, but I'd like to stop. I want to go see family, go to a baseball game and have people over for dinner. That doesn't mean I'd take a vaccine that I actually thought was dangerous, but I just don't understand being quite so risk averse when the alternative is living a much less full life.

(Obviously, this doesn't apply to people who actually could be at greater risk from a vaccine because of a medical condition.)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on July 08, 2020, 01:27:36 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on July 08, 2020, 12:28:08 PM
Many newer buildings have windows that do not open.  How did that ever make sense?  Certainly a shame now.

I work in a an older building where the windows used to open but now they are kept permanently shut.  They added some piece of metal on the outside window ledge that stops the window from swinging open.  Maybe this was meant to save on heat or air conditioning but now it does not look to good.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on July 08, 2020, 02:02:45 PM
Quote from: Caracal on July 08, 2020, 01:21:41 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on July 08, 2020, 12:46:56 PM
The very first smallpox vaccines sometimes killed people (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-50713991 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-50713991)) - obviously smallpox also killed or maimed many people, but the early vaccines were "safe" only in comparison with an extremely dangerous pathogen, much more dangerous than covid. Older flu shots often produced a reaction severe enough that it was dubious whether people who tended to get severe reactions were better off, individually, getting the flu shot or taking their chances with the flu. Covid is not the flu (neither is it smallpox) but there is precedent of new vaccines having genuine dangers. I'm sure normal modern approval processes are more stringent than those in Victorian Britain (or even those around when the flu shot first came out), but these aren't normal circumstances. The scenario I personally fear is someone I don't trust (like China) exporting corona vaccines to my country and basically being asked to have faith in "my" government's "seal of approval." For that matter, I wouldn't trust that my government refusing to approve a vaccine would be evidence-based, either.
Or putting the probabilities another way, very crudely: if the death rate from covid is 1%, then any treatment with less than 1% chance of killing the patient is worthwhile, in principle. If you're well under 60 and in good chance, your chance of dying from covid is in principle well below 1% so treatment is worthwhile only worthwhile if the chance of it killing you is still less than of covid killing you. But for a vaccine, to make it worthwhile generally the chance of it killing you must be less than chance of getting covid times chance of dying of covid given you have it - and that's assuming 100% efficacy in preventing death due to covid. I'm well below 60 and in good health, and everyone in my household is taking fairly stringent precautions.

Nothing that approaches any of those numbers would ever be seen as acceptable. Look, skepticism is fine if you have actual evidence to back it up. If a vaccine became available, but only the US approved it and other countries expressed reservations, or if lots of trustworthy experts said they didn't trust the data about its safety, I would obviously have to think about it. However, that's really different from just uninformed skepticism where you just say that you generally would not trust a hypothetical vaccine, despite the fact that the vaccine would go through extensive trials and there are clear protocols in place to make sure it would be safe.

I also just don't fundamentally don't understand the point about taking precautions. I'm taking a lot of precautions too. and I'm resigned to the fact that I'm going to have to for quite some time, but I'd like to stop. I want to go see family, go to a baseball game and have people over for dinner. That doesn't mean I'd take a vaccine that I actually thought was dangerous, but I just don't understand being quite so risk averse when the alternative is living a much less full life.

(Obviously, this doesn't apply to people who actually could be at greater risk from a vaccine because of a medical condition.)

+1
If you have to go all the way back to the first smallpox vaccine to find an example of vaccines actually being dangerous, you should already have your answer. The problem is no amount of data will convince some people to re-evaluate their assessments of risk. Even if you are very, very careful, your risk from COVID will be MUCH higher than any risk from an approved vaccine.

Moreover, a vaccine doesn't have to be 100% effective to help-- the flu vaccine is only partly effective even in years where they guess right about the strains that will be circulating, but it still both reduces cases and reduces severity of illness for those who do get sick. Moreover, even partial immunity at the population level cuts down on transmission, protecting those that otherwise would get sick even with the vaccine, or who can't or won't be vaccinated. Those that refuse to be vaccinated for non-medical reasons are effectively free-loading on herd immunity.

I wish I could say that I'm surprised to see vaccine resistance from well-educated people here, but we know from pre-pandemic data that a sizable chunk of vaccine hesitant people are precisely upper middle class, generally liberal, people who are well-educated in non-science fields. This is why some of the lowest vaccination rates (and subsequent measles outbreaks) are in places like Berkeley. Another big chunk are right-wing evangelical Christians-- their reasons are quite distinct, but there are likely some similarities in terms of science skepticism and distrust of authority. The psychology behind this is complex-- there's an interesting review paper about it here:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29611455/

The bad news is that there is little evidence that interventions that have been tried have been successful in changing peoples minds. We see evidence of that in the back and forth here as well. The one thing that does seem to help somewhat is emphasizing social norms for vaccination. If we consistently spread the message that vaccination is what most people are doing, to protect the most vulnerable of their family, friends and neighbors, that may help some.


Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on July 08, 2020, 04:42:03 PM
I'm enjoying the debate. When we have a vaccine that has passed FDA testing, I will ask my doctor to administer. Based on my experience with her, she'll review the CDC vaccine schedule for people with my health conditions, then administer if appropriate. I look forward to that day. In the meantime, I am assuming that I need to take precautions for a minimum of 18 months.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on July 08, 2020, 05:51:12 PM
I take any and all vaccines I can get my hands on. Flu. Pneumonia. Japanese B encephalitis. If I remember correctly, I've been vaccinated for measles three times after the initial two-dose MMR sequence I had as a child -- because lab research and epidemiological data kept indicating that the last vaccine I had received was not effective enough. I'm non-responsive to the hepatitis B vaccine, which is bad news.

Quote from: Vkw10 on July 08, 2020, 04:42:03 PM
I'm enjoying the debate. When we have a vaccine that has passed FDA testing, I will ask my doctor to administer. Based on my experience with her, she'll review the CDC vaccine schedule for people with my health conditions, then administer if appropriate. I look forward to that day. In the meantime, I am assuming that I need to take precautions for a minimum of 18 months.

Unfortunately not all physicians are, um, competent in this area. I went to a nearby Ivy League university family medicine clinic for Shingrix when it hit the market (already had received zostavax several years prior), thinking it would be quick and simple. Nope. After I told the resident what I was there for, and explained my risk factors (nasty case of chicken pox at age 21, chronic immune disorder, etc.), all she did was look at the CDC webpage, while I was thinking "I did that myself at home, you idiot." She then informed me that because I was 49, not 50, she would not administer the vaccination. As soon as I left I called one of my regular physicians and said I needed him to write a scrip for the vaccine so I could get it injected at CVS, which he did. First and last time I went to that clinic.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 08, 2020, 06:04:18 PM
My sibling had the virus and seems to be recovering (fingers crossed). Unfortunately, sib's spouse may now have it and is immunocompromised due to medication.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on July 08, 2020, 06:42:40 PM
The way things are going, with all kinds of chaos and lack of coordination, particular in the U.S., I would be surprised if regular people could get the vaccine early on anyway. The distribution will be haphazard and subject to all kinds of pressures from people who want to keep it for their city or state or friends or whatever. I wouldn't be surprised if many thousands, perhaps millions, of people had already tried it out before I get an opportunity to get my hands on it.

I think perhaps an alternate route back to safety will be if/when they develop uniformly effective treatments. Right now they're just treating symptoms, except for the one drug that seems to improve prognosis about 5%. I envision this situation as like the early days of AIDS — or really of any disease — in which the initial stages were horrific, but eventually science got going and reduced the mortality rate drastically, and for some diseases almost wholly.  I think in five years, this will be a much less lethal disease.

I do hear lots, and lots and LOTS, of people saying, "Oh well, the fatality rate is under 1% unless you're in a small category of vulnerable people or over 60!"  Well, lots and LOTS of us are over 60 (and some of us with compounding vulnerable factors even apart from that), and not ready to fold up our tents and die yet. I'm getting really allergic to people who write off older folks as incidental and expendable.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on July 08, 2020, 08:07:11 PM
Quote from: Anselm on July 08, 2020, 01:27:36 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on July 08, 2020, 12:28:08 PM
Many newer buildings have windows that do not open.  How did that ever make sense?  Certainly a shame now.

I work in a an older building where the windows used to open but now they are kept permanently shut.  They added some piece of metal on the outside window ledge that stops the window from swinging open.  Maybe this was meant to save on heat or air conditioning but now it does not look to good.

Our building has an old half and new half. In the old half, the windows have rivets on the handles, but at least some of the rivets have mysteriously disappeared.

At a former institution, there were a couple windows in a stairwell that were painted open. That was a cold stairwell in the winter!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 09, 2020, 04:22:48 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on July 08, 2020, 06:42:40 PM
I envision this situation as like the early days of AIDS — or really of any disease — in which the initial stages were horrific, but eventually science got going and reduced the mortality rate drastically, and for some diseases almost wholly.  I think in five years, this will be a much less lethal disease.


Probably, but only because by that time most people would have been exposed. Apparently, one possibility is that while full immunity to this doesn't last that long, people who previously got it are going to have moistly mild cases. It might  just become another cold virus. Without a vaccine, getting to that point isn't going to be very pleasant.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on July 09, 2020, 04:29:30 AM


Delivery methods and uncertain attenuation of the viral matter were a part of the problem for early vaccines (late 18th c.), and before that, for inoculations (1720s were the first in both the UK and the colonies).

Smallpox was carried in vials for the more elaborately supplied folks, like Jenner and Waterhouse, who shipped their samples across the Atlantic to each other.

But on the frontiers, it was often on a string that had been passed through the pustules of those whose sores had opened and were running.

Tetanus was one of the more severe complications from this less-than-ideal (or sanitary) method, but it was also possible that either no "active matter" was in the pus itself, or too much was.

Titrating out the right concentrations is something that is more easily done today.

But the issues and complications today are still not non-negligible.

So, yeah, 12-18 mo. sounds about right to me.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on July 09, 2020, 05:54:53 AM
My university instituted a new online form for requesting COVID-19 workplace modification. They've stated clearly that this form isn't for ADA accommodations, but is being funneled through ADA officer because he's authorized to review medical information. So far, fine.

Supervisors received urgent emails with Adobe documents to sign off on, stating that they would provide "COVID-19 workplace modifications while university is above stage 1 pandemic response." Lots of forms were signed immediately. Then employees got emails telling them modification approved, submit 100% telecommuting form with duration of "one year, automatic renewal with satisfactory annual review." Chaos ensued.

No guidance to supervisors, no explanation of what the modification would be or outline of process, just a hurry-up-and-sign email. We had faculty teaching nursing clinics, student workers, groundskeepers, bench scientists, residence hall staff, and a VP approved for 100% remote work indefinitely. Chaos, because process was rushed through for faculty teaching Summer II, then expanded to everyone in an effort to be fair and efficient.

My university needs to s-l-o-w down. Hard to believe I want them to slow down, but hasty responses like this one are causing problems. We're four months into what's likely to be at least 18 months of dealing with pandemic. We need to shift out of panic mode and think processes through before implementing them.

Hmm, maybe this should have gone in venting thread.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on July 09, 2020, 08:30:31 AM
My student is still waiting on results of her COVID test from last week. Local news said tests are taking 2-3 weeks for results right now here in metro St. Louis.  Cases and hospitalizations are on the rise, but nothing like the current hot spots, so I can only imagine how long people there are waiting for reports.  She emailed me while back at the urgent care for more breathing meds.  I'm worried for her.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on July 09, 2020, 08:49:59 AM
I travel to some of the more remote parts of the world and have received the Yellow Fever vaccine.  It's considered one of the more adverse effects prone vaccines and yet I had only a bit of mild discomfort.  The new Shingrix vaccine for shingles is pretty much guaranteed to have some injection site swelling and pain - I found the pain to be mild.  The only vaccine I would have concerns about (until I do some more reading) would be for dengue fever, since it can heighten the effects of dengue caused by a different strain.

I sit on a state-wide committee to promote vaccines and vaccinations.  The vaccine hesitancy discussed on this board is something we are trying to find a way to address. 

It seems that the lack of trust in conventional medicine/big pharma by people with advanced degrees described here is just the flip side of the coin that has "I love the poorly educated"  Trumpists having no trust in the mainstream media. 

Were it up to me, I would take Andrew Wakefield (the British quack MD who first claimed vaccines cause autism) out behind the shed and beat him half to death with an axe handle.  All medicines/vaccines have side effects.  Most can be managed.  In a high enough concentration, Oxygen is toxic. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 09, 2020, 09:36:21 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on July 09, 2020, 08:49:59 AM


It seems that the lack of trust in conventional medicine/big pharma by people with advanced degrees described here is just the flip side of the coin that has "I love the poorly educated"  Trumpists having no trust in the mainstream media. 


The part I don't understand is how selective the distrust is. In the broadest sense, I suppose I'm skeptical about biomedicine too. However, that's really more of a philosophical position about truth and authority. As a practical matter, I obviously live my life within the system. Most anti vaccine and vaccine hesitant people do too. In fact, the arguments against vaccines are mostly firmly within a biomedical paradigm. It is mostly about just choosing to believe in certain kinds of discredited science. You see the same thing in this conversation. If you're going to go get tested if you think you have covid and you would go to the hospital with a severe case and listen to doctors about your treatment, it seems odd to say that you would substitute your own judgement for all these medical professionals you rely on when it comes to a vaccine to prevent it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on July 09, 2020, 10:36:39 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 09, 2020, 09:36:21 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on July 09, 2020, 08:49:59 AM


It seems that the lack of trust in conventional medicine/big pharma by people with advanced degrees described here is just the flip side of the coin that has "I love the poorly educated"  Trumpists having no trust in the mainstream media. 


The part I don't understand is how selective the distrust is. In the broadest sense, I suppose I'm skeptical about biomedicine too. However, that's really more of a philosophical position about truth and authority. As a practical matter, I obviously live my life within the system. Most anti vaccine and vaccine hesitant people do too. In fact, the arguments against vaccines are mostly firmly within a biomedical paradigm. It is mostly about just choosing to believe in certain kinds of discredited science. You see the same thing in this conversation. If you're going to go get tested if you think you have covid and you would go to the hospital with a severe case and listen to doctors about your treatment, it seems odd to say that you would substitute your own judgement for all these medical professionals you rely on when it comes to a vaccine to prevent it.

I'd make a distinction here between the merely vaccine hesitant (who are mostly as you describe) and the hard-core anti-vaxxers, who tend to be skeptical and fearful of much of modern bioscience, and often science and authority more broadly (from both the left and the right-- the memoir Educated is a facilitating look at this in a fundamentalist Mormon community). Attempts to persuade the former may work because they are essentially open to evaluating scientific evidence, they just are misinterpreting the data or believing non-credible sources. The latter are not really persuadable because they interpret any credible evidence as propaganda, part of the plot of "them" (big pharma, the government, whatever), to hide the truth. It's the same thinking that drives other sorts of conspiracy theories.

I say this as someone who was raised by a vaccine hesitant hippy mother who delayed some of my childhood vaccines (I had to get some missed ones before college) and believed that herbs and such were better than most drugs (but would use them when really necessary). She now regrets most of that, and worked really hard to get the new shingles vaccine when they kept being out of it. In fact, she's now the one always asking if I got my flu shot (yes mom, on campus, like every year). I think my becoming a scientist and harping on her about the data had at least a little to do with shifting her opinions, but I don't really know what did it-- I should ask.

So people do change, but I'm afraid there is a group that is not persuadable and we'll just have to hope there aren't enough of them to ruin herd immunity.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on July 09, 2020, 10:43:04 AM
Did you see the opinion piece in today's NYT?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/opinion/coronavirus-vaccine-skepticism.html

QuoteAccording to recent polls, half to three-quarters of Americans intend to get the vaccine if one becomes available — woefully short of what we'll need to protect our communities.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on July 09, 2020, 10:55:09 AM
Quote from: downer on July 09, 2020, 10:43:04 AM
Did you see the opinion piece in today's NYT?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/opinion/coronavirus-vaccine-skepticism.html

QuoteAccording to recent polls, half to three-quarters of Americans intend to get the vaccine if one becomes available — woefully short of what we'll need to protect our communities.

That is very concerning, but I'm somewhat hopeful those numbers will come up with education of the merely hesitant and actual choices between getting vaccinated and being able to go back to something like normal life, or having to self-isolate indefinitley. It's one thing to hesitate when it is all theoretical, but an actual decision point  may clarify things for some folks. Also, since there are unlikely to be enough doses for everyone immediately, there will probably be quite some time when only those at highest risk (medical personnel, nursing home residents, etc.) can get it, but people can see that it is safe and effective. We'll clearly never get to 100% but hopefully better than 50-75%.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on July 09, 2020, 06:28:42 PM
Quote from: Caracal on July 09, 2020, 09:36:21 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on July 09, 2020, 08:49:59 AM


It seems that the lack of trust in conventional medicine/big pharma by people with advanced degrees described here is just the flip side of the coin that has "I love the poorly educated"  Trumpists having no trust in the mainstream media. 


The part I don't understand is how selective the distrust is. In the broadest sense, I suppose I'm skeptical about biomedicine too. However, that's really more of a philosophical position about truth and authority. As a practical matter, I obviously live my life within the system. Most anti vaccine and vaccine hesitant people do too. In fact, the arguments against vaccines are mostly firmly within a biomedical paradigm.

I suspect some of the vaccine hesitance expressed on this board is less a distrust of scientists and more a distrust of government. I distrust many of my country's current elected leadership. Those elected leaders set policy and decide budgets and appoint executives at government agencies. Distrusting elected leadership erodes trust in government agencies like the FDA. That transference of distrust is a subconscious process, not easy to recognize in oneself.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on July 09, 2020, 07:58:39 PM
Quote from: Vkw10 on July 09, 2020, 06:28:42 PM
Quote from: Caracal on July 09, 2020, 09:36:21 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on July 09, 2020, 08:49:59 AM


It seems that the lack of trust in conventional medicine/big pharma by people with advanced degrees described here is just the flip side of the coin that has "I love the poorly educated"  Trumpists having no trust in the mainstream media. 


The part I don't understand is how selective the distrust is. In the broadest sense, I suppose I'm skeptical about biomedicine too. However, that's really more of a philosophical position about truth and authority. As a practical matter, I obviously live my life within the system. Most anti vaccine and vaccine hesitant people do too. In fact, the arguments against vaccines are mostly firmly within a biomedical paradigm.

I suspect some of the vaccine hesitance expressed on this board is less a distrust of scientists and more a distrust of government. I distrust many of my country's current elected leadership. Those elected leaders set policy and decide budgets and appoint executives at government agencies. Distrusting elected leadership erodes trust in government agencies like the FDA. That transference of distrust is a subconscious process, not easy to recognize in oneself.

In any case, Charlie Darwin will take care of this! :-)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Ruralguy on July 09, 2020, 08:10:22 PM
More will get the vaccine because employers will likely make it mandatory.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on July 09, 2020, 08:51:35 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on July 09, 2020, 08:10:22 PM
More will get the vaccine because employers will likely make it mandatory.

Maybe. I think it's more likely that many employers will simply say that a vaccine is available, so remote work and staggered schedules and other accommodations aren't necessary. Most employers won't want to deal with grievances and medical exemption paperwork that requiring vaccine would prompt. Large employers may arrange vaccine shots onsite, which will help.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on July 10, 2020, 03:58:01 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on July 09, 2020, 08:10:22 PM
More will get the vaccine because employers will likely make it mandatory.

Given the resistance to wearing masks, can you imagine the resistance to mandatory vaccines in the US? It is easier to imagine it being well accepted in more socially conforming societies.

As for the law, there would obviously be lawsuits. The results might be hard to predict. Here's a discussion of requiring flu vaccines.
QuoteAs for current employees, the ADA generally prohibits employers from mandating that employees receive any medical testing or vaccinations unless they are job-related, consistent with business necessity, and no more intrusive than necessary.  This is a very difficult standard to meet unless the employer is part of the healthcare field or otherwise requires employees to regularly interact with immune-compromised clients, patients, or customers.
(Source (https://laborandemploymentlawupdate.com/2019/11/12/navigating-the-legal-risks-of-a-mandatory-vaccine-program-for-employees/))
A lot of employers have found that it is possible to continue business with employees working from home.

It might be easier for universities to require that students get vaccinations since they already do that for MMR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 10, 2020, 04:16:33 AM
Quote from: downer on July 10, 2020, 03:58:01 AM

As for the law, there would obviously be lawsuits. The results might be hard to predict. Here's a discussion of requiring flu vaccines.
QuoteAs for current employees, the ADA generally prohibits employers from mandating that employees receive any medical testing or vaccinations unless they are job-related, consistent with business necessity, and no more intrusive than necessary.  This is a very difficult standard to meet unless the employer is part of the healthcare field or otherwise requires employees to regularly interact with immune-compromised clients, patients, or customers.
(Source (https://laborandemploymentlawupdate.com/2019/11/12/navigating-the-legal-risks-of-a-mandatory-vaccine-program-for-employees/))


Hmm, try reading that again. That was a difficult standard to meet with the flu vaccine. It will not at all be a difficult standard to meet for COVID. Sure, some companies may decide to continue to allow remote work, but that doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to decide that it would be more efficient to require some or all employees to come in to work at least some of the time. I don't think someone is going to get very far as an employee by arguing that because they worked from home during an emergency situation that their employer has no right to expect them to ever come in the office or that employees being in an office in person is somehow totally unnecessary.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on July 10, 2020, 04:38:16 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 10, 2020, 04:16:33 AM
Quote from: downer on July 10, 2020, 03:58:01 AM

As for the law, there would obviously be lawsuits. The results might be hard to predict. Here's a discussion of requiring flu vaccines.
QuoteAs for current employees, the ADA generally prohibits employers from mandating that employees receive any medical testing or vaccinations unless they are job-related, consistent with business necessity, and no more intrusive than necessary.  This is a very difficult standard to meet unless the employer is part of the healthcare field or otherwise requires employees to regularly interact with immune-compromised clients, patients, or customers.
(Source (https://laborandemploymentlawupdate.com/2019/11/12/navigating-the-legal-risks-of-a-mandatory-vaccine-program-for-employees/))


Hmm, try reading that again. That was a difficult standard to meet with the flu vaccine. It will not at all be a difficult standard to meet for COVID. Sure, some companies may decide to continue to allow remote work, but that doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to decide that it would be more efficient to require some or all employees to come in to work at least some of the time. I don't think someone is going to get very far as an employee by arguing that because they worked from home during an emergency situation that their employer has no right to expect them to ever come in the office or that employees being in an office in person is somehow totally unnecessary.

I'm no lawyer, and these things can depend on which judge you get. For many jobs, employers can fire employees for just about any reason. It will also vary from state to state. For example, apparently Oregon (https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/labor-employment-law/human-resources-law/forcing-flu-shots-employees-and-health-at-work.html) has a law preventing healthcare employers from making vaccinations mandatory.

I expect there will be pressure on politicians to enact laws preventing mandatory vaccinations, especially in those states where large numbers of people think that the virus is a liberal conspiracy against freedom.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 10, 2020, 06:07:27 AM
Quote from: downer on July 10, 2020, 03:58:01 AM

Given the resistance to wearing masks, can you imagine the resistance to mandatory vaccines in the US? It is easier to imagine it being well accepted in more socially conforming societies.

I expect there will be pressure on politicians to enact laws preventing mandatory vaccinations, especially in those states where large numbers of people think that the virus is a liberal conspiracy against freedom.


Of course, your reasons for being skeptical of a vaccine are valid, for everyone else it is about their irrational beliefs?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on July 10, 2020, 06:10:10 AM
Quote from: Vkw10 on July 09, 2020, 06:28:42 PM
Quote from: Caracal on July 09, 2020, 09:36:21 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on July 09, 2020, 08:49:59 AM


It seems that the lack of trust in conventional medicine/big pharma by people with advanced degrees described here is just the flip side of the coin that has "I love the poorly educated"  Trumpists having no trust in the mainstream media. 


The part I don't understand is how selective the distrust is. In the broadest sense, I suppose I'm skeptical about biomedicine too. However, that's really more of a philosophical position about truth and authority. As a practical matter, I obviously live my life within the system. Most anti vaccine and vaccine hesitant people do too. In fact, the arguments against vaccines are mostly firmly within a biomedical paradigm.

I suspect some of the vaccine hesitance expressed on this board is less a distrust of scientists and more a distrust of government. I distrust many of my country's current elected leadership. Those elected leaders set policy and decide budgets and appoint executives at government agencies. Distrusting elected leadership erodes trust in government agencies like the FDA. That transference of distrust is a subconscious process, not easy to recognize in oneself.

For me, it isn't a generalized distrust of government.....just the current covidiot at the top of the current government.  I'll get a vaccine if/when Tony Faucci gets his.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on July 10, 2020, 06:11:44 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 10, 2020, 06:07:27 AM
Quote from: downer on July 10, 2020, 03:58:01 AM

Given the resistance to wearing masks, can you imagine the resistance to mandatory vaccines in the US? It is easier to imagine it being well accepted in more socially conforming societies.

I expect there will be pressure on politicians to enact laws preventing mandatory vaccinations, especially in those states where large numbers of people think that the virus is a liberal conspiracy against freedom.


Of course, your reasons for being skeptical of a vaccine are valid, for everyone else it is about their irrational beliefs?

I haven't noticed you demonstating any humility about the chances that you are wrong about anything. If you want to descend into snark, well, that's your choice.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on July 10, 2020, 06:13:09 AM
I realize my view on healthcare is opposite to just about everyone else's, but I wish health insurers had more flexibility to deny claims when people engage in highly risky behavior. If you violate public health orders and get infected at a party with 30 people... claim denied. Decline a vaccine that is available to you without a valid medical reason and get sick? Claim denied.

Make the financial consequences visible enough and you don't need to persuade people about the public health benefits of various measures. You just have to count on the fact that they don't want to risk paying $10,000 out of pocket because they had to go to a party. And if someone really thinks COVID is a hoax or the vaccine will implement them with microchips, then they should have no problem declining medical care or, when they realize it's not a hoax after all, picking up the tab for it.

Edit: personally, I'll look at the data from Phase III trials before making a decision. But given the Phase I results so far, I suspect efficacy will be a bigger unknown than adverse reactions.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on July 10, 2020, 06:19:08 AM
In the time of coronavirus, a poem about America:

https://twitter.com/Guinz/status/1280698069932277760

Hilarious and sad.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 10, 2020, 06:38:40 AM
Quote from: downer on July 10, 2020, 06:11:44 AM


Of course, your reasons for being skeptical of a vaccine are valid, for everyone else it is about their irrational beliefs?
[/quote]

I haven't noticed you demonstating any humility about the chances that you are wrong about anything. If you want to descend into snark, well, that's your choice.
[/quote]

I might be wrong about all sorts of things, which is why I prefer to outsource my decisions on vaccines to people who have expertise. I actually think there's something pretty unpleasant about telling us you wouldn't get a hypothetical vaccine, the larger public health be damned, but other people who don't trust experts are a bunch of deluded rubes causing a crisis.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 10, 2020, 07:56:52 AM
Quote from: Vkw10 on July 09, 2020, 08:51:35 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on July 09, 2020, 08:10:22 PM
More will get the vaccine because employers will likely make it mandatory.

Maybe. I think it's more likely that many employers will simply say that a vaccine is available, so remote work and staggered schedules and other accommodations aren't necessary. Most employers won't want to deal with grievances and medical exemption paperwork that requiring vaccine would prompt. Large employers may arrange vaccine shots onsite, which will help.

That will surely be the most effective way of spreading vaccination when it becomes generally available.  Vaccine-skeptical employees will have to answer for themselves which are they more afraid of--getting the disease, or trusting the vaccine?  I imagine most will go for the vaccine.  The young invincibles who don't fear getting sick in the first place will be another story.  I kind of like puget's idea of making them bear the medical costs if they get sick.  Then again, a lot of them already don't think they need insurance anyway.

I think we're probably going to have a high rate of take-up for the vaccine among those who consider themselves to be at risk, or are mindful of their own potential to become spreaders.  I'll certainly take it when the opportunity comes, so as not to risk spreading it to co-workers, family, patrons, etc.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on July 10, 2020, 08:49:02 AM
Quote from: apl68 on July 10, 2020, 07:56:52 AM
Quote from: Vkw10 on July 09, 2020, 08:51:35 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on July 09, 2020, 08:10:22 PM
More will get the vaccine because employers will likely make it mandatory.

Maybe. I think it's more likely that many employers will simply say that a vaccine is available, so remote work and staggered schedules and other accommodations aren't necessary. Most employers won't want to deal with grievances and medical exemption paperwork that requiring vaccine would prompt. Large employers may arrange vaccine shots onsite, which will help.

That will surely be the most effective way of spreading vaccination when it becomes generally available.  Vaccine-skeptical employees will have to answer for themselves which are they more afraid of--getting the disease, or trusting the vaccine?  I imagine most will go for the vaccine.  The young invincibles who don't fear getting sick in the first place will be another story.  I kind of like puget's idea of making them bear the medical costs if they get sick.  Then again, a lot of them already don't think they need insurance anyway.

I think we're probably going to have a high rate of take-up for the vaccine among those who consider themselves to be at risk, or are mindful of their own potential to become spreaders.  I'll certainly take it when the opportunity comes, so as not to risk spreading it to co-workers, family, patrons, etc.

To be clear, that was pigou not me. I can understand the temptation but don't think this is a good idea-- its a slippery slope to deciding who deserves healthcare (do you not get health coverage for your diabetes because you should have exercised and eaten better?). I do think there can and will other natural consequences -- no vaccine, no school/college is an obvious one that is already the case most places for other vaccinations. Also maybe no air/train travel, no returning to work in person, etc. There is strong precedent for requiring compliance with public health measures in this way.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on July 10, 2020, 10:08:10 AM
Quote from: Puget on July 10, 2020, 08:49:02 AM
Quote from: apl68 on July 10, 2020, 07:56:52 AM
Quote from: Vkw10 on July 09, 2020, 08:51:35 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on July 09, 2020, 08:10:22 PM
More will get the vaccine because employers will likely make it mandatory.

Maybe. I think it's more likely that many employers will simply say that a vaccine is available, so remote work and staggered schedules and other accommodations aren't necessary. Most employers won't want to deal with grievances and medical exemption paperwork that requiring vaccine would prompt. Large employers may arrange vaccine shots onsite, which will help.

That will surely be the most effective way of spreading vaccination when it becomes generally available.  Vaccine-skeptical employees will have to answer for themselves which are they more afraid of--getting the disease, or trusting the vaccine?  I imagine most will go for the vaccine.  The young invincibles who don't fear getting sick in the first place will be another story.  I kind of like puget's idea of making them bear the medical costs if they get sick.  Then again, a lot of them already don't think they need insurance anyway.

I think we're probably going to have a high rate of take-up for the vaccine among those who consider themselves to be at risk, or are mindful of their own potential to become spreaders.  I'll certainly take it when the opportunity comes, so as not to risk spreading it to co-workers, family, patrons, etc.

To be clear, that was pigou not me. I can understand the temptation but don't think this is a good idea-- its a slippery slope to deciding who deserves healthcare (do you not get health coverage for your diabetes because you should have exercised and eaten better?). I do think there can and will other natural consequences -- no vaccine, no school/college is an obvious one that is already the case most places for other vaccinations. Also maybe no air/train travel, no returning to work in person, etc. There is strong precedent for requiring compliance with public health measures in this way.

Yes, this attitude scares me. I am a never smoker who was diagnosed with lung cancer last year. However, I found out (a nurse at a practice to which I was referred clued me in) that I was most definitely not believed. My original oncologist (whom I "fired") went on and on and on in my visit notes about how I was a smoker and lying to his face about it. (Believe me, it was a lot more than a simple "patient denies smoking, but I have my doubts".) In any case, even without such policies, I found that misinformation in file distressing and wound up spending a long time dealing with it. I can't even begin to imagine the nightmare if I was actually going to be denied insurance coverage because of it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on July 10, 2020, 10:29:05 AM
Health insurers can already deny coverage for certain high-risk activities that are specified in the insurance plan. For example, if you get a head injury during bungee jumping, you may be on the hook for the costs. It's more common in less regulated areas of insurance, e.g. travel insurance. If you travel to a war zone, you're on your own if you need health care. Notably, it's not just imprudent behavior, but explicitly engaging in high-risk activity. If you go on a hike and get injured because you were clumsy, they'll still cover your expenses. But if you're climbing Mt. Everest, that activity is excluded and requires supplemental insurance.

Smoking is tricky not least because it's only probabilistically increasing a risk. But if you attend a birthday party with 30 of your closest friends while such gatherings are prohibited an 10 of you get sick... yeah, I doubt they all got independently infected buying groceries. Especially in cases like we have seen in New York, where the host had symptoms, knew they had symptoms, and decided to throw the party anyway. Then we have people who had a positive COVID test, but decided to go to parties anyway -- and others got infected.

I'm not advocating for some blanket rule about refusing coverage for "bad" behavior. But people who flaunt public health orders and recklessly infect others? Yeah, they can pay up. And people can sue each other to figure out whether the person hosting or attending the party should have to pay.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 10, 2020, 10:55:13 AM
My apologies to both Puget and pigou for the confusion. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on July 10, 2020, 12:16:47 PM
I teach about drug and vaccine development as part of my science courses. As such I have had many discussions with students about "Big Pharma". What I have seen is that the distrust of Big Pharma is really a distrust of an organization who prioritizes $$ over public well-being. And for that I'm all with them.
     But then I break it down with them and ask if they distrust the scientists who work at Big Pharma? Usually the answer is no (there are a few who call them sell-outs). These scientists are doing good research, but often don't have control over which project they work on. The malaria vaccine will get cut for lack of profit potential- go work to develop another male impotence drug instead. This gets their attention. I make my students realize that as future scientists they often will be removed from those decisions about priority, funding, etc. I tell my students if they want to be part of those decisions, they need to understand business, policy, politics, and how to sway the public. All things many scientists have actively avoided.
   I then ask them who SHOULD develop drugs and vaccines, given the HUGE R+D costs (which we detail). They don't have a good answer and come to the realization that your choices as essentially private industry or government funding.
    So my take on the vaccine is this- if we have one approved it will be because of a Herculean effort on the part of the science community, both Big Pharma and government funded. It truly would be the achievement of my post-Space Race generation. BUT, I won't be injected with it until I see a fully peer reviewed and accepted publication in a major journal documenting is efficacy. I will NOT just take the word of policy makers unless they have the science degrees to back them up. I also will look side-eyed at the CEOs of the company that makes the thing, unless they declare that it to be rolled out in a no-profit type scenario.

As an aside, to AmLitHist, your old doctor was right about the first Chicken Pox Vaccine. It had very poor efficacy in protecting adults from Shingles recurrence. Hence why it has now been twice replaced with better versions. The data on Shingrix (the latest version) is phenomenal. Protective immunity generated by patients in their 80s! I will be at my doctors doorstep on my 50th birthday just to get it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on July 10, 2020, 02:44:43 PM
Thanks for that confirmation about the first varicella shots, Mythbuster.  Thanks too for your much clearer and more eloquent discussion of my thoughts about the eventual COVID vaccine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 10, 2020, 04:42:34 PM
Quote from: mythbuster on July 10, 2020, 12:16:47 PM

    So my take on the vaccine is this- if we have one approved it will be because of a Herculean effort on the part of the science community, both Big Pharma and government funded. It truly would be the achievement of my post-Space Race generation. BUT, I won't be injected with it until I see a fully peer reviewed and accepted publication in a major journal documenting is efficacy.

Is that how this would work? My understanding was that you have a phase three trial to test the efficacy and safety of the vaccine and if the data looks good, it is submitted to the FDA for approval. Are those studies usually published in journals? Are they made available as part of the approval process?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 11, 2020, 11:44:47 AM
A small bit of good news, particularly as it relates to young kids and schools.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2020/07/08/peds.2020-004879


And this is probably petty, but when I suggested there were some promising signs pointing to this conclusion a couple of months ago, a certain poster, wrote this.

The concern everywhere I've seen that has real scientists involved is indeed that little kids spread everything, even if they themselves aren't all that sick.  It's a lovely thought that somehow people with the worst hygiene habits are somehow not going to be spreading a highly contagious disease, but that's not a science thought based on everything we know about other viruses and kids. Epidemiology isn't my specialty, but my colleagues who are (close enough colleagues that I can call them up and say, "Hey, it's Polly.  What's the real scoop on ...?) are much more trustworthy sources than your interpretation from "news" sources that you didn't even bother to name so we could judge their credibility.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on July 12, 2020, 08:51:26 AM
Should faculty over age 65 be teaching in-person at a university or public school this fall?  Over age 70?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on July 12, 2020, 09:17:07 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on July 12, 2020, 08:51:26 AM
Should faculty over age 65 be teaching in-person at a university or public school this fall?  Over age 70?

I support their right to choose to do that, but think it's crucial that they have the choice to say no to f2f. I've opted (67, other issues as well) to convert to online.

I think it's a bad idea for anyone in the 65+ age range to teach f2f in most circumstances. A large lecture hall, with plenty of space between the instructor and the students would be fine. However, in my discipline that is not a good modality anyway.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 12, 2020, 01:30:52 PM
We have a petition going around which calls for faculty to be allowed to have the choice for either ftf or online.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on July 14, 2020, 01:16:49 PM
I have a coronavirus question. We've all heard that transmission of the virus is much less likely outside than inside buildings. I had always assumed this was because there tends to be much more "ventilation" aka wind outside than inside and this natural ventilation quickly disperses the aerosolized particles containing the virus. But what if it is completely calm outside? Why would this be somehow better than being in some large indoor space?

I was wondering this this past weekend when I was outdoors with a bunch of people on a narrow hiking trail. There were all manner of signs insisting that people stay 6' apart, but how is this possible when the trail is 2' wide with drop-offs on either sides? Anyway, while noticing just how impossible it was to socially distance, I also noticed that there was absolutely zero wind. Total calm. The leaves on the trees were perfectly still. How is this not just as dangerous as having a large crowd in a spacious building?

By the way, we were wearing masks along with about 10% of the people on the trail. We have a mask ordinance in our county, but masks are only required indoors.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on July 14, 2020, 01:22:51 PM
Quote from: Treehugger on July 14, 2020, 01:16:49 PM
I have a coronavirus question. We've all heard that transmission of the virus is much less likely outside than inside buildings. I had always assumed this was because there tends to be much more "ventilation" aka wind outside than inside and this natural ventilation quickly disperses the aerosolized particles containing the virus. But what if it is completely calm outside? Why would this be somehow better than being in some large indoor space?

I was wondering this this past weekend when I was outdoors with a bunch of people on a narrow hiking trail. There were all manner of signs insisting that people stay 6' apart, but how is this possible when the trail is 2' wide with drop-offs on either sides? Anyway, while noticing just how impossible it was to socially distance, I also noticed that there was absolutely zero wind. Total calm. The leaves on the trees were perfectly still. How is this not just as dangerous as having a large crowd in a spacious building?

By the way, we were wearing masks along with about 10% of the people on the trail. We have a mask ordinance in our county, but masks are only required indoors.

Duration. Just don't stay near people. In an indoor space the duration of your exposure is typically a lot longer.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on July 14, 2020, 03:43:22 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on July 14, 2020, 01:22:51 PM
Quote from: Treehugger on July 14, 2020, 01:16:49 PM
I have a coronavirus question. We've all heard that transmission of the virus is much less likely outside than inside buildings. I had always assumed this was because there tends to be much more "ventilation" aka wind outside than inside and this natural ventilation quickly disperses the aerosolized particles containing the virus. But what if it is completely calm outside? Why would this be somehow better than being in some large indoor space?

I was wondering this this past weekend when I was outdoors with a bunch of people on a narrow hiking trail. There were all manner of signs insisting that people stay 6' apart, but how is this possible when the trail is 2' wide with drop-offs on either sides? Anyway, while noticing just how impossible it was to socially distance, I also noticed that there was absolutely zero wind. Total calm. The leaves on the trees were perfectly still. How is this not just as dangerous as having a large crowd in a spacious building?

By the way, we were wearing masks along with about 10% of the people on the trail. We have a mask ordinance in our county, but masks are only required indoors.

Duration. Just don't stay near people. In an indoor space the duration of your exposure is typically a lot longer.

+1  Depending on the research group doing the study, "significant exposure" is 10-30 minutes.  Walking past someone on a trail would be low risk assuming nobody sneezed into your face as you went by.

Fun facts - according to my state dept of public health. 

40% of Covid deaths in Artem State are in those 60-80 yrs of age and 47% are in those over age 80. 

53% of cases are in those below the age of 40, but they are only 3% of deaths. 

Only 13% of cases are asymptomatic. 

Conclusion - all those youngun's who insist they just GOTTA go for a beer with their friends or they'll just lose their minds are not not likely to die, but they are likely to get symptoms, and they pose a genuine risk to their families, co-workers, etc. who may be older or in poor health.  Jebus Crikey on a bike - Anne Frank spent 2 years in that freakin' attic.  Americans should just shut the frack up and do what's right. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 15, 2020, 06:49:11 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on July 14, 2020, 03:43:22 PM
[

Conclusion - all those youngun's who insist they just GOTTA go for a beer with their friends or they'll just lose their minds are not not likely to die, but they are likely to get symptoms, and they pose a genuine risk to their families, co-workers, etc. who may be older or in poor health.   

Yes, and especially when it is perfectly easy to go have a beer with friends in a relatively safe fashion. Go sit on your deck, or your stoop, stay six feet apart and it becomes a pretty low risk activity. That said, we shouldn't lose track of where the blame really lies. People shouldn't go to bars or sit inside at restaurants, so why are those places open for indoor seating?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on July 15, 2020, 07:29:19 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 15, 2020, 06:49:11 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on July 14, 2020, 03:43:22 PM
[

Conclusion - all those youngun's who insist they just GOTTA go for a beer with their friends or they'll just lose their minds are not not likely to die, but they are likely to get symptoms, and they pose a genuine risk to their families, co-workers, etc. who may be older or in poor health.   

Yes, and especially when it is perfectly easy to go have a beer with friends in a relatively safe fashion. Go sit on your deck, or your stoop, stay six feet apart and it becomes a pretty low risk activity. That said, we shouldn't lose track of where the blame really lies. People shouldn't go to bars or sit inside at restaurants, so why are those places open for indoor seating?

Becuz the eijit in the White House sez it's OK.....

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 15, 2020, 08:47:25 AM
Quote from: mamselle on July 15, 2020, 07:29:19 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 15, 2020, 06:49:11 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on July 14, 2020, 03:43:22 PM
[

Conclusion - all those youngun's who insist they just GOTTA go for a beer with their friends or they'll just lose their minds are not not likely to die, but they are likely to get symptoms, and they pose a genuine risk to their families, co-workers, etc. who may be older or in poor health.   

Yes, and especially when it is perfectly easy to go have a beer with friends in a relatively safe fashion. Go sit on your deck, or your stoop, stay six feet apart and it becomes a pretty low risk activity. That said, we shouldn't lose track of where the blame really lies. People shouldn't go to bars or sit inside at restaurants, so why are those places open for indoor seating?

Becuz the eijit in the White House sez it's OK.....

M.

Exactly. I am so tired of family telling me that 'it's just the flu' and that it should be gone in the fall. Frustrating. And, of course, none of them have a medical degree...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on July 15, 2020, 09:50:02 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on July 14, 2020, 01:16:49 PM
I have a coronavirus question. We've all heard that transmission of the virus is much less likely outside than inside buildings. I had always assumed this was because there tends to be much more "ventilation" aka wind outside than inside and this natural ventilation quickly disperses the aerosolized particles containing the virus. But what if it is completely calm outside? Why would this be somehow better than being in some large indoor space?

Outdoors, there's a vast volume of air to dilute the aerosol (even in a crowd, there's a lot of air above the crowd). Even assuming no air currents, diffusion dilutes it - but in an enclosed space, the aerosol has nowhere to go and just keeps building up (in practice there's always some ventilation, unless you're in a submarine, but diffusion is still going to be much slower than outdoors). In practice, because of convection and so on, there's always going to be some air current, even if it's too slow to be noticeable (and diffusion and air currents combined disperse aerosols faster than either alone would) - in an enclosed space all it does is move the aerosol droplets around in the same space, but outdoors it helps disperse the aerosol. Even opening a window helps. None of this helps much if someone coughs directly on your face as you inhale, but it does matter to transmission via aerosol.
incidentally all of this has been known for ages, in the context of transmission of other viruses causing respiratory illnesses, like the flu. That humans produce aerosol, that that aerosol contains live viruses, that this contaminated aerosol can remain in the air for hours, that the viruses in it can in turn infect others, and that filtering out part of the aerosol (as with a facemask) or cutting down its concentration in air (by opening a window, for example) can cut down the viral load, all of these are things that have long been known and have been reported in the peer reviewed literature for a long time.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 15, 2020, 10:18:59 AM
I learned today that one of my neighbors is now confined to his house.  Not because he has anything, but because he's in charge of the local hospital and has been instructed to work from home and stay out of harm's way at all costs.  Evidently the people in charge are afraid of what might happen to the hospital if he were to be put out of action.  Given the extent to which he's turned the place around since he took over management of it several years back, I don't blame them.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 15, 2020, 10:22:21 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 15, 2020, 08:47:25 AM
Quote from: mamselle on July 15, 2020, 07:29:19 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 15, 2020, 06:49:11 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on July 14, 2020, 03:43:22 PM
[

Conclusion - all those youngun's who insist they just GOTTA go for a beer with their friends or they'll just lose their minds are not not likely to die, but they are likely to get symptoms, and they pose a genuine risk to their families, co-workers, etc. who may be older or in poor health.   

Yes, and especially when it is perfectly easy to go have a beer with friends in a relatively safe fashion. Go sit on your deck, or your stoop, stay six feet apart and it becomes a pretty low risk activity. That said, we shouldn't lose track of where the blame really lies. People shouldn't go to bars or sit inside at restaurants, so why are those places open for indoor seating?

Becuz the eijit in the White House sez it's OK.....

M.

Exactly. I am so tired of family telling me that 'it's just the flu' and that it should be gone in the fall. Frustrating. And, of course, none of them have a medical degree...

The man in the White House has a lot to answer for, but this goes so far beyond that.  The reopenings wouldn't be happening if there wasn't a great deal of public pressure for them to.  We've gone so many years without a truly terrible epidemic in our country that society as a whole just can't wrap their heads around what it takes to deal with one.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on July 15, 2020, 11:04:34 AM
And there's also a kind-of racist element in some peoples' thinking:

"That's something that happens to...take your pick....SE Asian places, African places, South American hotspots, etc...."

"THEY" get the Ebolas, the MERS's the SARS's (first time around: which taught 'them' how important it is to let your brain tell your feet and hands what to do...), etc....we don't. It goes away when it gets to us: we're special...must be that.

I.e., we're privileged, it's not something we in all our wonderfulness have to deal with, it's one of the perks of ending up in this partic'lar place at this partic'lar time in the history of the world....it's not realllllly our problem, because those people in all those other places don't have whatever it is that make us special.

But that's just not true. As we're (maybe) seeing now....

Or--as in the refrain of a folk song learned at camp in the 1960s...."When will they ever learn?"

Maybe next March, when it's still with us.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 15, 2020, 11:48:57 AM
Quote from: mamselle on July 15, 2020, 11:04:34 AM
And there's also a kind-of racist element in some peoples' thinking:

"That's something that happens to...take your pick....SE Asian places, African places, South American hotspots, etc...."

"THEY" get the Ebolas, the MERS's the SARS's (first time around: which taught 'them' how important it is to let your brain tell your feet and hands what to do...), etc....we don't. It goes away when it gets to us: we're special...must be that.

I.e., we're privileged, it's not something we in all our wonderfulness have to deal with, it's one of the perks of ending up in this partic'lar place at this partic'lar time in the history of the world....it's not realllllly our problem, because those people in all those other places don't have whatever it is that make us special.

But that's just not true. As we're (maybe) seeing now....

Or--as in the refrain of a folk song learned at camp in the 1960s...."When will they ever learn?"

Maybe next March, when it's still with us.

M.
I doubt some of them will learn by then. The way some people around here think, you'd think they were still subscribing to medieval medicine. I'm waiting for the four humors to pop up.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on July 15, 2020, 12:04:16 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on July 15, 2020, 09:50:02 AM
Outdoors, there's a vast volume of air to dilute the aerosol (even in a crowd, there's a lot of air above the crowd). Even assuming no air currents, diffusion dilutes it - but in an enclosed space, the aerosol has nowhere to go and just keeps building up (in practice there's always some ventilation, unless you're in a submarine, but diffusion is still going to be much slower than outdoors). In practice, because of convection and so on, there's always going to be some air current, even if it's too slow to be noticeable (and diffusion and air currents combined disperse aerosols faster than either alone would) - in an enclosed space all it does is move the aerosol droplets around in the same space, but outdoors it helps disperse the aerosol. Even opening a window helps. None of this helps much if someone coughs directly on your face as you inhale, but it does matter to transmission via aerosol.
incidentally all of this has been known for ages, in the context of transmission of other viruses causing respiratory illnesses, like the flu. That humans produce aerosol, that that aerosol contains live viruses, that this contaminated aerosol can remain in the air for hours, that the viruses in it can in turn infect others, and that filtering out part of the aerosol (as with a facemask) or cutting down its concentration in air (by opening a window, for example) can cut down the viral load, all of these are things that have long been known and have been reported in the peer reviewed literature for a long time.

Thanks, Stockmann.  This post came at a good time for some related questions I had about airflow, aersol, outdoor air, and viral load.

Quote from: apl68 on July 15, 2020, 10:22:21 AM
The reopenings wouldn't be happening if there wasn't a great deal of public pressure for them to.  We've gone so many years without a truly terrible epidemic in our country that society as a whole just can't wrap their heads around what it takes to deal with one.

I am hugely in favor of the cautious, data-based, phased approach to re-opening, closing, re-opening.
That said, I am trying to understand how others feel.  Many people are really struggling economically and mentally at this point.  I don't want to think about what it's like to see your own business that you spent a lifetime building have to close, for good, and desperately wondering how you will support yourself/family going forward.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on July 15, 2020, 12:38:42 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on July 15, 2020, 12:04:16 PM
Quote from: apl68 on July 15, 2020, 10:22:21 AM
The reopenings wouldn't be happening if there wasn't a great deal of public pressure for them to.  We've gone so many years without a truly terrible epidemic in our country that society as a whole just can't wrap their heads around what it takes to deal with one.

I am hugely in favor of the cautious, data-based, phased approach to re-opening, closing, re-opening.
That said, I am trying to understand how others feel.  Many people are really struggling economically and mentally at this point.  I don't want to think about what it's like to see your own business that you spent a lifetime building have to close, for good, and desperately wondering how you will support yourself/family going forward.

I think what we're seeing is the dark side of individualism. The healthy way to view individualism is that we are part of a society that enables us to be free, so long as we do the minimum to maintain that society. Instead what we're seeing is "freedom" used as a code word for devolving responsibility. Various federal agencies give guidance, which is then undercut by the White House, but neither resources nor firm rules. States then are left to do what they think is appropriate. In many cases, that means "empowering" local entities to fix the problem with limited guidance and no resources. Many universities and schools are "empowering" faculty to fix the problem. That is, the language of freedom and autonomy is being used to abdicate responsibility. I don't know if it's because the higher levels don't want to assume responsibility, or that they don't have the language or political theory to do more.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on July 15, 2020, 12:55:44 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on July 15, 2020, 12:04:16 PM
Quote from: apl68 on July 15, 2020, 10:22:21 AM
The reopenings wouldn't be happening if there wasn't a great deal of public pressure for them to.  We've gone so many years without a truly terrible epidemic in our country that society as a whole just can't wrap their heads around what it takes to deal with one.

I am hugely in favor of the cautious, data-based, phased approach to re-opening, closing, re-opening.
That said, I am trying to understand how others feel.  Many people are really struggling economically and mentally at this point.  I don't want to think about what it's like to see your own business that you spent a lifetime building have to close, for good, and desperately wondering how you will support yourself/family going forward.

+1. Lockdowns can't be continued indefinitely. I get wanting to re-open with suitable precautions. The people I have no patience for are people who refuse to do things like wear a facemask in public - wearing a facemask protects you, protects others, is risk-free and could be continued as long as necessary.
I've just returned from driving - most of the pedestrians I saw who weren't wearing facemasks were old men. Yeah, I totally don't get why this place is a hotspot. \s
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 15, 2020, 01:29:26 PM
Quote from: apl68 on July 15, 2020, 10:22:21 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 15, 2020, 08:47:25 AM
Quote from: mamselle on July 15, 2020, 07:29:19 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 15, 2020, 06:49:11 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on July 14, 2020, 03:43:22 PM
[

Conclusion - all those youngun's who insist they just GOTTA go for a beer with their friends or they'll just lose their minds are not not likely to die, but they are likely to get symptoms, and they pose a genuine risk to their families, co-workers, etc. who may be older or in poor health.   

Yes, and especially when it is perfectly easy to go have a beer with friends in a relatively safe fashion. Go sit on your deck, or your stoop, stay six feet apart and it becomes a pretty low risk activity. That said, we shouldn't lose track of where the blame really lies. People shouldn't go to bars or sit inside at restaurants, so why are those places open for indoor seating?

Becuz the eijit in the White House sez it's OK.....

M.

Exactly. I am so tired of family telling me that 'it's just the flu' and that it should be gone in the fall. Frustrating. And, of course, none of them have a medical degree...

The man in the White House has a lot to answer for, but this goes so far beyond that.  The reopenings wouldn't be happening if there wasn't a great deal of public pressure for them to.  We've gone so many years without a truly terrible epidemic in our country that society as a whole just can't wrap their heads around what it takes to deal with one.

I don't agree. First of all, polling has pretty consistently indicated that most people approved of, and continue to approve of, measures to limit spread. But, also, the whole "reopening" debate is basically nonsense promoted by Trump. I really detest the term "lockdown" because it makes it seem like we would be going back to March. That isn't actually necessary. We know a lot more about the spread of the virus now than we did then. There's no need to close beaches, parks and the like, or even restaurants with outdoor seating. Some workplaces that weren't considered essential at the beginning have figured out ways to reopen relatively safely. The issue is things that aren't safe until you can really get numbers down, which is bars, gyms and probably most indoor dining.

Also, of course people are tired of restrictions. People got tired of them in other countries too. The difference is that most other wealthy countries had a big surge of cases and were then able to roll out large scale testing and contract tracing to keep things under control after the numbers went down. Now, they have been able to lift more restrictions in a safe way. Again, I really think the focus on "reopening" as a binary issue came straight from the top and has screwed up the debate.  It isn't that Americans somehow failed to handle this because of our ingrained selfishness, it is that our federal government has completely failed to function in the face of a crisis and states have basically been on their own. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 15, 2020, 01:35:59 PM
I'm inclined to think that it's a combination of what cheerful and pgher point to.  I suspect that mamselle is also correct in suggesting that many think that they are somehow too special to need to worry about taking precautions, but am inclined to think that it has less to do with race than with a sense of invincibility brought on by youth, or with a general lack of concern for society.  From what I've seen, the old folks are more likely overall to take precautions seriously, not less.  Although the occasional believers in conspiracy theories do seem to be mostly old folks.

I can't help detecting a sense of being "more special/entitled than you" on the part of some who take the epidemic very seriously as well.  People who can afford to hole up in their homes and have everything delivered to their doorstep are unabashedly using privilege to keep themselves safe, while relying on others to take the risks needed to keep society and the economy running.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on July 15, 2020, 05:02:42 PM
My county is using some data source (or more likely they provide the data, and some entity updates the website).  The data USED to include a breakdown of infections by age, and another by gender.  But that stopped some time ago.  Are you seeing, in your local or state numbers, a breakdown of the infection cases by age?

When the reports stopped, the 20-30s were the highest percentage of positive cases. 

As that is the age group I most worry about infecting ME, Id like to know just how much danger I am in IF I am unable to not be 100% online.  (So far, I am 84% online so i am required to meet 'everyone' no fewer than 5 face to face meetings.  )

Anyone got the 'good data' Im looking for?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on July 15, 2020, 06:36:20 PM
Quote from: mamselle on July 15, 2020, 11:04:34 AM
And there's also a kind-of racist element in some peoples' thinking:

"That's something that happens to...take your pick....SE Asian places, African places, South American hotspots, etc...."

"THEY" get the Ebolas, the MERS's the SARS's (first time around: which taught 'them' how important it is to let your brain tell your feet and hands what to do...), etc....we don't. It goes away when it gets to us: we're special...must be that.

/quote]

Yup - American exceptionalism. Reminds me of an apocryphal newspaper headline from way back when that read, "Typhoon Hits Bangladesh - 1 Million Killed, No Americans Injured"
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on July 16, 2020, 04:22:30 AM
Quote from: pgher on July 15, 2020, 12:38:42 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on July 15, 2020, 12:04:16 PM
Quote from: apl68 on July 15, 2020, 10:22:21 AM
The reopenings wouldn't be happening if there wasn't a great deal of public pressure for them to.  We've gone so many years without a truly terrible epidemic in our country that society as a whole just can't wrap their heads around what it takes to deal with one.

I am hugely in favor of the cautious, data-based, phased approach to re-opening, closing, re-opening.
That said, I am trying to understand how others feel.  Many people are really struggling economically and mentally at this point.  I don't want to think about what it's like to see your own business that you spent a lifetime building have to close, for good, and desperately wondering how you will support yourself/family going forward.

I think what we're seeing is the dark side of individualism. The healthy way to view individualism is that we are part of a society that enables us to be free, so long as we do the minimum to maintain that society. Instead what we're seeing is "freedom" used as a code word for devolving responsibility. Various federal agencies give guidance, which is then undercut by the White House, but neither resources nor firm rules. States then are left to do what they think is appropriate. In many cases, that means "empowering" local entities to fix the problem with limited guidance and no resources. Many universities and schools are "empowering" faculty to fix the problem. That is, the language of freedom and autonomy is being used to abdicate responsibility. I don't know if it's because the higher levels don't want to assume responsibility, or that they don't have the language or political theory to do more.

Thank you, pgher.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 16, 2020, 07:42:08 AM
Quote from: clean on July 15, 2020, 05:02:42 PM
My county is using some data source (or more likely they provide the data, and some entity updates the website).  The data USED to include a breakdown of infections by age, and another by gender.  But that stopped some time ago.  Are you seeing, in your local or state numbers, a breakdown of the infection cases by age?

When the reports stopped, the 20-30s were the highest percentage of positive cases. 

As that is the age group I most worry about infecting ME, Id like to know just how much danger I am in IF I am unable to not be 100% online.  (So far, I am 84% online so i am required to meet 'everyone' no fewer than 5 face to face meetings.  )

Anyone got the 'good data' Im looking for?

Do you mean that you want to know what percentage of people in their 20s and 30s are infected, or what your personal risk of infection is? Or what your risks are if you are infected?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on July 16, 2020, 09:41:20 AM
Of those infected, what is the breakdown by age.
If 1000 people are infected in my county, I want to know the percentage that are 20-29, the percentage 30-39, ....

This breakdown was last reported in May. At that time the 20-29 age group was the highest group.  Given that IF I am expected to work face to face, and that the typical college age group is in the 'indestructible' mind set, .... and the local news yesterday showed a camera phone video of a  bar fight where the bar's liqueur license  was subsequently suspended for 30 days because of social distancing/overcrowding violations, ... The crowd certainly looked to be in the 20-29 group!

Given that I am at risk, I d like to be able to see those numbers in the hopes of influencing the administration .... well, that is futile, i suppose.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ab_grp on July 16, 2020, 09:53:56 AM
Clean, my state has a dashboard that provides demographic (age, gender) breakdowns of cases by county (or other level of detail).  It doesn't report percentages, but the numbers are there in tables and bar charts and easy enough to calculate from.   Looks like 20-29 has the highest incidence here, too.   The dashboard is on the state department of health site.  I just googled "[county] covid cases by age" and found this.  Hopefully there is similar info available for your area.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: arcturus on July 16, 2020, 11:14:17 AM
Clean, my state also has a dashboard that provides demographic information. The positive cases are peaked around middle age (16-17% in each of the age bins between 20-29 and 50-59, whereas 70-79 and 80+ are both ~8%).  The deaths are strongly skewed towards the elderly (70-79 are 25% of the deaths; 80+ are 52% of the deaths). I get to the dashboard by googling "mystate coronavirus news" and this gets the state department of health site near the top of the list. From the state map, I can also select my county to get the local demographics.

My state had been on a downward trajectory, but I see that we are now on the upswing both in statewide covid cases and in hospitalizations. My county had been flat (almost no cases) until the end of June. We are now on an exponential upswing. Not a good sign.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on July 16, 2020, 11:29:28 AM
Quote from: clean on July 15, 2020, 05:02:42 PM
As that is the age group I most worry about infecting ME, Id like to know just how much danger I am in IF I am unable to not be 100% online.  (So far, I am 84% online so i am required to meet 'everyone' no fewer than 5 face to face meetings.  )

I'm sorry you're still having to worry about this, clean.  You should be given permission to teach fully online and be able to live free from stress about that.  Who decided on the quota of required in-person meetings?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 16, 2020, 12:47:01 PM
Our governor has just mandated wearing of masks in public!  Belated, but at least it's happening now.  And I don't anticipate his being sabotaged by the legislature as has happened elsewhere.

Now we'll see how much the measure actually helps.  Masks are a really good idea, but they're not a cure-all.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on July 16, 2020, 01:12:11 PM
QuoteQuote from: clean on July 15, 2020, 05:02:42 PM
As that is the age group I most worry about infecting ME, Id like to know just how much danger I am in IF I am unable to not be 100% online.  (So far, I am 84% online so i am required to meet 'everyone' no fewer than 5 face to face meetings.  )

I'm sorry you're still having to worry about this, clean.  You should be given permission to teach fully online and be able to live free from stress about that.  Who decided on the quota of required in-person meetings?
Classes here are one of four types: 0-24% online, 25-49%, 50 -84% or fully online. There are varying fees associated with the different classes.  I have no idea who, or even when this breakdown was created.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 16, 2020, 03:49:07 PM
Quote from: apl68 on July 16, 2020, 12:47:01 PM
Our governor has just mandated wearing of masks in public!  Belated, but at least it's happening now.  And I don't anticipate his being sabotaged by the legislature as has happened elsewhere.

Now we'll see how much the measure actually helps.  Masks are a really good idea, but they're not a cure-all.

Our governor is a dumb ass.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on July 16, 2020, 05:32:05 PM
Re: Masks

I am really good about wearing masks. My loved one insists that I do and supplied me well. As things are, I do not stay out more than 4-5 hours a day, in the daylight time exclusively. Do I need to wear a new mask each day? Do they dry out or air out due a period of time and become refreshed, and thus safe to reuse, maybe?

While within range of the subject of oscular activity, should we? Other related possibilities?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on July 17, 2020, 04:57:20 AM
I finally bought a box of masks, as I can't wash my two clothe masks frequently enough.  I keep the box in the car.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 17, 2020, 01:44:03 PM
I've found that you can wash "disposable" masks at least a couple of times without damaging them.

Had conversations with the staff today about what to do now that we have a state mask mandate.  Now that we've got the Governor backing us up, we can go from pleading with patrons to wear masks to requiring them to.  I've let them know that if somebody gives them trouble over it, to come get me and let me put them out.  Likewise if somebody claims exemption from the mask rule on grounds of poor health.  In that case I plan to suggest to the patron that they might take advantage of our curbside service, since if you can't breathe with a mask on you REALLY don't need to be exposing yourself to COVID-19 in public.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 18, 2020, 05:01:37 AM
Quote from: Economizer on July 16, 2020, 05:32:05 PM
Re: Masks

I am really good about wearing masks. My loved one insists that I do and supplied me well. As things are, I do not stay out more than 4-5 hours a day, in the daylight time exclusively. Do I need to wear a new mask each day? Do they dry out or air out due a period of time and become refreshed, and thus safe to reuse, maybe?

While within range of the subject of oscular activity, should we? Other related possibilities?

This isn't based on any science, but...
I rather strongly suspect that the difference is very marginal. It wouldn't be if you were working in a hospital, or coming in lots of prolonged contact with a lot of people. I just have a mask in my car on the passenger seat, or sometimes in my pocket, and put it on when I go inside somewhere other than my house, which is rare these days, or when I'm going to be somewhere near people outside in an environment where I don't know for sure I can control distance between me and other people. I find the masks pretty annoying, so I take them off once they aren't necessary. I'm pretty bad at remembering things, so I've decided just not worrying too much about it is the way I can have a mask with me and wear it. Once every few days I remember to bring the mask in the car inside and wash it and replace it, and when I find one wadded up in my pocket I do the same. I'm pretty confident this is fine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on July 18, 2020, 07:29:01 PM
I don't agree with this. Part of the function of masks is to decrease the viral load that reaches your nose and mouth. They do this by intercepting the aerosols and droplets transmitted by others and hence the virus accumulates on the outside of your mask. Touching this increases the likelihood of that concentrated virus being transmitted to your face - and reusing a mask without cleaning it increases the likelihood of you touching the outside of the mask with its ever increasing viral load.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on July 18, 2020, 07:50:11 PM
I recentlly bought a bag of store brand cough drops at a deep deep discount store. On several occasions, I popped one into my mouth while wearing my blue fabric[?] mask. Each time I did this, I immediately experienced burning gaseous sensations that hindered my talking and my thinking for a few moments. A lawyer pal said I should post about this. I don't know why because he seemed to be on the "requiring the masks by governmental units is OK" side of controversy. With him though, he's probably seeking a "truth" or something. And that, may well be true.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on July 19, 2020, 04:13:35 AM
https://reason.com/2020/07/18/what-happens-when-a-professor-is-unable-to-finish-teaching-a-class-due-to-covid-19/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 19, 2020, 04:33:42 AM
Quote from: science.expat on July 18, 2020, 07:29:01 PM
I don't agree with this. Part of the function of masks is to decrease the viral load that reaches your nose and mouth. They do this by intercepting the aerosols and droplets transmitted by others and hence the virus accumulates on the outside of your mask. Touching this increases the likelihood of that concentrated virus being transmitted to your face - and reusing a mask without cleaning it increases the likelihood of you touching the outside of the mask with its ever increasing viral load.

Right, but I think you're missing the larger point. Sure, in some marginal way, but I would be doubtful this is going to significantly increase risks. It might, if I was spending lots of time in close contact with other people indoors, and if I was, I would be getting a new mask every day. However,  I probably came within six feet of anybody else in the last week three times, all for less than 5 seconds and I was indoors in a place outside my house once, for probably ten seconds.

More broadly, I think one of the dangers of giving people too many instructions is that you make something seem too difficult. The alternative to me keeping a very lightly used mask in my car, is getting somewhere and realizing I've forgotten to bring a mask. Ditto on all the stuff about being incredibly careful to avoid touching the mask. I just take it off. Again, I'd do this all differently in other settings. If I end up teaching class in person, for example, I'd bring in new masks every day and wash my hands before and after taking off a mask.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 19, 2020, 04:56:08 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on July 19, 2020, 04:13:35 AM
https://reason.com/2020/07/18/what-happens-when-a-professor-is-unable-to-finish-teaching-a-class-due-to-covid-19/

I continue to find this angle  perplexing. Professors are unable to finish classes all the time because of illness. We don't need a continuity of operations plan, because we don't work at a nuclear power plant. Everything can be worked out on an ad-hoc basis. The emergency plan would be the same as this ad-hoc plan. If it was early in the semester, you might try to replace someone who couldn't teach anymore. The options are pretty obvious; grad students at the institution, grad students at another institution, and people who you know might be looking for adjunct work. If it's later in the semester, other faculty would probably do it, either alone or together. If everybody is so sick that the whole operation can't function than who the hell cares. It can all be figured out later because it still isn't a nuclear power plant.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on July 19, 2020, 09:17:04 AM
Quote from: Economizer on July 18, 2020, 07:50:11 PM
I recentlly bought a bag of store brand cough drops at a deep deep discount store. On several occasions, I popped one into my mouth while wearing my blue fabric[?] mask. Each time I did this, I immediately experienced burning gaseous sensations that hindered my talking and my thinking for a few moments. A lawyer pal said I should post about this. I don't know why because he seemed to be on the "requiring the masks by governmental units is OK" side of controversy. With him though, he's probably seeking a "truth" or something. And that, may well be true.

I can't tell if you're being serious or what you're getting at. Cough drops often contain menthol or eucalyptus. That's what you're smelling. The mask is creating a slightly higher concentration of these compounds in the air next to your mouth and nose than you're used to. If you smeared pure eucalyptus oil all over your face and in your mouth, then you might poison yourself whether you put a mask on afterward or not. At the concentrations found in cough drops, it's totally harmless.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on July 19, 2020, 10:12:07 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 19, 2020, 04:56:08 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on July 19, 2020, 04:13:35 AM
https://reason.com/2020/07/18/what-happens-when-a-professor-is-unable-to-finish-teaching-a-class-due-to-covid-19/

I continue to find this angle  perplexing. Professors are unable to finish classes all the time because of illness. We don't need a continuity of operations plan, because we don't work at a nuclear power plant. Everything can be worked out on an ad-hoc basis. The emergency plan would be the same as this ad-hoc plan. If it was early in the semester, you might try to replace someone who couldn't teach anymore. The options are pretty obvious; grad students at the institution, grad students at another institution, and people who you know might be looking for adjunct work. If it's later in the semester, other faculty would probably do it, either alone or together. If everybody is so sick that the whole operation can't function than who the hell cares. It can all be figured out later because it still isn't a nuclear power plant.

I've been looking at these new requirements as a veiled acknowledgment that upper level admin is expecting  a significant percentage of faculty to be too sick to teach for a month or more. I'm curious about the percentage they're contemplating; five, ten, fifteen? My dean asked chairs to update and share their lists of potential replacements, in case the chair is incapacitated and dean has to find replacement for sick faculty.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 19, 2020, 10:51:34 AM
Quote from: Vkw10 on July 19, 2020, 10:12:07 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 19, 2020, 04:56:08 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on July 19, 2020, 04:13:35 AM
https://reason.com/2020/07/18/what-happens-when-a-professor-is-unable-to-finish-teaching-a-class-due-to-covid-19/

I continue to find this angle  perplexing. Professors are unable to finish classes all the time because of illness. We don't need a continuity of operations plan, because we don't work at a nuclear power plant. Everything can be worked out on an ad-hoc basis. The emergency plan would be the same as this ad-hoc plan. If it was early in the semester, you might try to replace someone who couldn't teach anymore. The options are pretty obvious; grad students at the institution, grad students at another institution, and people who you know might be looking for adjunct work. If it's later in the semester, other faculty would probably do it, either alone or together. If everybody is so sick that the whole operation can't function than who the hell cares. It can all be figured out later because it still isn't a nuclear power plant.

I've been looking at these new requirements as a veiled acknowledgment that upper level admin is expecting  a significant percentage of faculty to be too sick to teach for a month or more. I'm curious about the percentage they're contemplating; five, ten, fifteen? My dean asked chairs to update and share their lists of potential replacements, in case the chair is incapacitated and dean has to find replacement for sick faculty.

I think you're overestimating the amount of thought going into this sort of thing. When you are dealing with uncertain situations, there is lots of pressure to "prepare." Nobody is out there estimating what percentage of faculty are going to be incapacitated, it is just that administrators read something or have some thought and then make everyone do some thing so nobody can say they weren't prepared. If a chair was sick, I'm sure some other faculty member would take over and they would be equally capable of finding a replacement. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on July 19, 2020, 12:00:09 PM
Quote from: spork on July 19, 2020, 09:17:04 AM
Quote from: Economizer on July 18, 2020, 07:50:11 PM
I recentlly bought a bag of store brand cough drops at a deep deep discount store. On several occasions, I popped one into my mouth while wearing my blue fabric[?] mask. Each time I did this, I immediately experienced burning gaseous sensations that hindered my talking and my thinking for a few moments. A lawyer pal said I should post about this. I don't know why because he seemed to be on the "requiring the masks by governmental units is OK" side of controversy. With him though, he's probably seeking a "truth" or something. And that, may well be true.

I can't tell if you're being serious or what you're getting at. Cough drops often contain menthol or eucalyptus. That's what you're smelling. The mask is creating a slightly higher concentration of these compounds in the air next to your mouth and nose than you're used to. If you smeared pure eucalyptus oil all over your face and in your mouth, then you might poison yourself whether you put a mask on afterward or not. At the concentrations found in cough drops, it's totally harmless.
I was trying to make the point that thicknesses or material of masks and/or the potency of things, scents or gases, for example, might impair folks at times during their day. Therefore, for many, it is important that they have flexibility as to when and where they can go without wearing one.

Also (I don't want to go too far into paranoia on this), these masks seem to come from all over the world. They are not listed as "J" list items. Thus, if they are not of U.S. Origin they should be individually labeled as to their C. Of O. That's in U.S. Customs regs. As for fabric/material composition, that may come under FDA regs. which have an entirely different schedule of notice, procedures, and classification that compliment U.S. entry of certain goods into the commerce of the United States. All this for good reasons.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on July 19, 2020, 12:58:15 PM
Quote from: Economizer on July 19, 2020, 12:00:09 PMTherefore, for many, it is important that they have flexibility as to when and where they can go without wearing one.
Yes, if your breathing is too impaired to wear a mask safely and consistently, then you should certainly have the flexibility to stay home / away from other people while you are so impaired.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ciao_yall on July 19, 2020, 01:17:38 PM
Quote from: Economizer on July 19, 2020, 12:00:09 PM
Quote from: spork on July 19, 2020, 09:17:04 AM
Quote from: Economizer on July 18, 2020, 07:50:11 PM
I recentlly bought a bag of store brand cough drops at a deep deep discount store. On several occasions, I popped one into my mouth while wearing my blue fabric[?] mask. Each time I did this, I immediately experienced burning gaseous sensations that hindered my talking and my thinking for a few moments. A lawyer pal said I should post about this. I don't know why because he seemed to be on the "requiring the masks by governmental units is OK" side of controversy. With him though, he's probably seeking a "truth" or something. And that, may well be true.

I can't tell if you're being serious or what you're getting at. Cough drops often contain menthol or eucalyptus. That's what you're smelling. The mask is creating a slightly higher concentration of these compounds in the air next to your mouth and nose than you're used to. If you smeared pure eucalyptus oil all over your face and in your mouth, then you might poison yourself whether you put a mask on afterward or not. At the concentrations found in cough drops, it's totally harmless.
I was trying to make the point that thicknesses or material of masks and/or the potency of things, scents or gases, for example, might impair folks at times during their day. Therefore, for many, it is important that they have flexibility as to when and where they can go without wearing one.

Also (I don't want to go too far into paranoia on this), these masks seem to come from all over the world. They are not listed as "J" list items. Thus, if they are not of U.S. Origin they should be individually labeled as to their C. Of O. That's in U.S. Customs regs. As for fabric/material composition, that may come under FDA regs. which have an entirely different schedule of notice, procedures, and classification that compliment U.S. entry of certain goods into the commerce of the United States. All this for good reasons.

Even places with strict mask ordinances would allow someone to remove it briefly if they wanted to catch a breath.

Geez, people...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on July 19, 2020, 02:27:05 PM
Quote from: namazu on July 19, 2020, 12:58:15 PM
Quote from: Economizer on July 19, 2020, 12:00:09 PMTherefore, for many, it is important that they have flexibility as to when and where they can go without wearing one.
Yes, if your breathing is too impaired to wear a mask safely and consistently, then you should certainly have the flexibility to stay home / away from other people while you are so impaired.

Yeah. If pulmonary function is already so badly compromised that you can't wear a mask in public, then you shouldn't be wandering around in public, because infection + comorbidity = far greater chance of morbidity.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 19, 2020, 04:57:43 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on July 19, 2020, 01:17:38 PM
Quote from: Economizer on July 19, 2020, 12:00:09 PM
Quote from: spork on July 19, 2020, 09:17:04 AM
Quote from: Economizer on July 18, 2020, 07:50:11 PM
I recentlly bought a bag of store brand cough drops at a deep deep discount store. On several occasions, I popped one into my mouth while wearing my blue fabric[?] mask. Each time I did this, I immediately experienced burning gaseous sensations that hindered my talking and my thinking for a few moments. A lawyer pal said I should post about this. I don't know why because he seemed to be on the "requiring the masks by governmental units is OK" side of controversy. With him though, he's probably seeking a "truth" or something. And that, may well be true.

I can't tell if you're being serious or what you're getting at. Cough drops often contain menthol or eucalyptus. That's what you're smelling. The mask is creating a slightly higher concentration of these compounds in the air next to your mouth and nose than you're used to. If you smeared pure eucalyptus oil all over your face and in your mouth, then you might poison yourself whether you put a mask on afterward or not. At the concentrations found in cough drops, it's totally harmless.
I was trying to make the point that thicknesses or material of masks and/or the potency of things, scents or gases, for example, might impair folks at times during their day. Therefore, for many, it is important that they have flexibility as to when and where they can go without wearing one.

Also (I don't want to go too far into paranoia on this), these masks seem to come from all over the world. They are not listed as "J" list items. Thus, if they are not of U.S. Origin they should be individually labeled as to their C. Of O. That's in U.S. Customs regs. As for fabric/material composition, that may come under FDA regs. which have an entirely different schedule of notice, procedures, and classification that compliment U.S. entry of certain goods into the commerce of the United States. All this for good reasons.

Even places with strict mask ordinances would allow someone to remove it briefly if they wanted to catch a breath.

Geez, people...

I mean, I don't enjoy wearing masks, especially in the heat. But, you don't really need to wear them for very long most of the time. Just wear them when you need to go inside somewhere , and if you're going to be around people outside where I can't completely control your distance. Ifou  it turns out you have enough space outside that you aren't going to need to be close to anyone, you can take them off.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on July 19, 2020, 07:29:12 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk5P_iRYwTY

Guy who normally sells precious metals was warning people about the virus back in January.  I find this amazing since I don't recall anyone giving me this much detail so early during the pandemic.  I was not sure what to think at the time.  It was another epidemic on the other side of the globe and I never expected our current situation.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on July 19, 2020, 08:22:47 PM
OK, MAYBE WE ARE DOWN TO AT WHAT THRESHOLDS WOULD JUSTIFY MASKS BEING MANDATED? CAN A LESSER JURISDICTION WITHIN A STATE MANDATE MASK USE? THAT WITH STATE GOV. OVERSIGHT AND APPROVAL? ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS Y'ALL MIGHT POSE? COULD THERE BE ANY COURT ACTIONS WITH LIABILITY ISSUES RE MASK USE? AM I MAKING ANY SENSE OR SHOULD I SAY GOODNIGHT!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on July 19, 2020, 08:42:01 PM
Thing that most caught my eye with respect to the Reason article was the notion that a professor drafted into duty as a replacement prof should expect to do so without additional compensation.   I get that doing this for a week or two would probably be seen as effectively a departmental good citizen duty, but what happens if Prof. X gets sick in mid-Sept and will not be able to continue for the rest of the semester?  Should Prof. Y be asked to do what effectively is an entire course for no extra money?  In any case, if a professor is ever to be asked to become a replacement for no additional pay, such a professor must in no case be an adjunct.  It would be the height of unseemliness to ask such a stipended peon to do so.  And in any case, many professors are already going to be asked to essentially double-up anyhow this semester, teaching parallel ftf and ol classes, and no one is planning on paying them more to do so.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on July 20, 2020, 04:32:15 AM
Quote from: Economizer on July 19, 2020, 08:22:47 PM
OK, MAYBE WE ARE DOWN TO AT WHAT THRESHOLDS WOULD JUSTIFY MASKS BEING MANDATED? CAN A LESSER JURISDICTION WITHIN A STATE MANDATE MASK USE? THAT WITH STATE GOV. OVERSIGHT AND APPROVAL? ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS Y'ALL MIGHT POSE? COULD THERE BE ANY COURT ACTIONS WITH LIABILITY ISSUES RE MASK USE? AM I MAKING ANY SENSE OR SHOULD I SAY GOODNIGHT!

GOODNIGHT.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 20, 2020, 06:48:33 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 19, 2020, 08:42:01 PM
Thing that most caught my eye with respect to the Reason article was the notion that a professor drafted into duty as a replacement prof should expect to do so without additional compensation.   I get that doing this for a week or two would probably be seen as effectively a departmental good citizen duty, but what happens if Prof. X gets sick in mid-Sept and will not be able to continue for the rest of the semester?  Should Prof. Y be asked to do what effectively is an entire course for no extra money?  In any case, if a professor is ever to be asked to become a replacement for no additional pay, such a professor must in no case be an adjunct.  It would be the height of unseemliness to ask such a stipended peon to do so.  And in any case, many professors are already going to be asked to essentially double-up anyhow this semester, teaching parallel ftf and ol classes, and no one is planning on paying them more to do so.

There's a certain clarity in being paid by the course. I can't say I would be real excited about the prospect of taking over a course in the middle of an already messy semester, but depending on the circumstances I might consider it, partly just as a favor to a chair and department who have treated me pretty well. I'm certainly not doing it for free, though.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on July 20, 2020, 07:20:36 AM
A pox on any department that asks its adjuncts to teach uncompensated.  FT faculty get compensated for taking over a course as specified in the contract.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mahagonny on July 20, 2020, 08:00:07 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 20, 2020, 06:48:33 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 19, 2020, 08:42:01 PM
Thing that most caught my eye with respect to the Reason article was the notion that a professor drafted into duty as a replacement prof should expect to do so without additional compensation.   I get that doing this for a week or two would probably be seen as effectively a departmental good citizen duty, but what happens if Prof. X gets sick in mid-Sept and will not be able to continue for the rest of the semester?  Should Prof. Y be asked to do what effectively is an entire course for no extra money?  In any case, if a professor is ever to be asked to become a replacement for no additional pay, such a professor must in no case be an adjunct.  It would be the height of unseemliness to ask such a stipended peon to do so.  And in any case, many professors are already going to be asked to essentially double-up anyhow this semester, teaching parallel ftf and ol classes, and no one is planning on paying them more to do so.

There's a certain clarity in being paid by the course. I can't say I would be real excited about the prospect of taking over a course in the middle of an already messy semester, but depending on the circumstances I might consider it, partly just as a favor to a chair and department who have treated me pretty well. I'm certainly not doing it for free, though.

And getting paid another stipend on top of your full time benefits? That's not you doing them a favor. It's your business booming.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 20, 2020, 11:16:33 AM
Out University made masks a requirement for the fall. Unfortunately, there are a few anti-mask people in one of the Natural Science disciplines. It is 'frustrating' to interact with them. Any suggestions, besides just not engaging?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on July 20, 2020, 12:53:08 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 20, 2020, 11:16:33 AM
Out University made masks a requirement for the fall. Unfortunately, there are a few anti-mask people in one of the Natural Science disciplines. It is 'frustrating' to interact with them. Any suggestions, besides just not engaging?

Ignore them.  Also, stay more than 6' back.
Unless you are the chosen (and paid to be) enforcer of health & safety, I'd stay out of it.  You have more than enough on your plate as is.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on July 20, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
QuoteThing that most caught my eye with respect to the Reason article was the notion that a professor drafted into duty as a replacement prof should expect to do so without additional compensation.   I get that doing this for a week or two would probably be seen as effectively a departmental good citizen duty, but what happens if Prof. X gets sick in mid-Sept and will not be able to continue for the rest of the semester?

Long ago, one of my coworkers was scheduled for knee replacement surgery after Spring Break. (It is a long story, as he had originally offered to have it done in the summer as long as he didnt take a pay cut for nto having summer teaching. He had 30 years with the campus and over 3 years of sick pay!).  The first administration offer was for us to take over his classes for prorated adjunct pay.  We countered with prorated summer pay, and I said, I will do it because you tell me to before I accept prorated adjunct pay.  IF you pay me that, then you will think that is a fair wage and I certainly do not, and IF I do it for free, then you will owe me some favor in the future.
We settled on full adjunct pay.
However, that situation had a known term. We knew he would not return before summer school started. WIth CV, will someone be unable to deal with the class, even online, for 10 days?  2 Weeks?  2 months?  How does one plan for this when there is a surprise start date and and unknown duration?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on July 20, 2020, 06:59:12 PM
Natural sciences professors are anti-mask?  What is next, flat-earthers in the astronomy dept.?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 20, 2020, 08:09:47 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 20, 2020, 06:59:12 PM
Natural sciences professors are anti-mask?  What is next, flat-earthers in the astronomy dept.?

It's a really messed-up situation. I try to avoid interacting with them.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on July 20, 2020, 09:32:58 PM
Got this in an email from the admincritters:

A faculty syllabus statement to consider using:   Masks or shields will be required in our classroom unless we are all able to social distance. The aforementioned requirements, assignments, evaluation procedures, and other contents of this syllabus are subject to change. Students' experiences and needs, as well as emerging knowledge, will be considered in modifying this course syllabus. Also, please know that in this time of COVID-19, if I become ill, the course will continue even if I cannot. 


Huh?  How does a class continue without the teacher? 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on July 20, 2020, 11:46:37 PM
Anyone done any research/ seen any data, on what colleges did during the 1918-9 flu pandemic?  They had no access to high tech virtual teaching, of course, so what exactly did they do?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ergative on July 21, 2020, 01:05:05 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 20, 2020, 11:46:37 PM
Anyone done any research/ seen any data, on what colleges did during the 1918-9 flu pandemic?  They had no access to high tech virtual teaching, of course, so what exactly did they do?

I seem to recall seeing a newspaper article about holding classes outside, with black-and-white photographs of people sitting in a circle on some grass, but I can't find it now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on July 21, 2020, 04:36:43 AM
Quote from: ergative on July 21, 2020, 01:05:05 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 20, 2020, 11:46:37 PM
Anyone done any research/ seen any data, on what colleges did during the 1918-9 flu pandemic?  They had no access to high tech virtual teaching, of course, so what exactly did they do?

I seem to recall seeing a newspaper article about holding classes outside, with black-and-white photographs of people sitting in a circle on some grass, but I can't find it now.

Vague recollection that was a K12 class.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 21, 2020, 06:37:00 AM
Quote from: Anselm on July 20, 2020, 09:32:58 PM
Got this in an email from the admincritters:

A faculty syllabus statement to consider using:   Masks or shields will be required in our classroom unless we are all able to social distance. The aforementioned requirements, assignments, evaluation procedures, and other contents of this syllabus are subject to change. Students' experiences and needs, as well as emerging knowledge, will be considered in modifying this course syllabus. Also, please know that in this time of COVID-19, if I become ill, the course will continue even if I cannot. 


Huh?  How does a class continue without the teacher?

Class will always continue without me, I don't really have to put that in the syllabus. That's how institutions work.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on July 21, 2020, 07:23:41 AM
COORECTION: ADMINICRITTERS

Also, folks above a certain age are governmentally determined to be at risk. Is it possible that educators that stand above that threshold will be blocked from classroom/campus work? Couldn't happen?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mahagonny on July 21, 2020, 07:31:37 AM
Quote from: Economizer on July 21, 2020, 07:23:41 AM
COORECTION: ADMINIICRITTERS

Also, folks above a certain age are governmentally determined to be at risk. Is it possible that educators that stand above that threshold will be blocked from classroom/campus work?

At risk of contracting the disease or of dying from it? It ought to be my decision how much risk of death I can tolerate. At present, it is 100%.
I hope the decision will be the individual's.
Older people are more cautious than young people.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on July 21, 2020, 11:26:20 AM
Quote from: Anselm on July 20, 2020, 09:32:58 PM
Got this in an email from the admincritters:

A faculty syllabus statement to consider using:   Masks or shields will be required in our classroom unless we are all able to social distance. The aforementioned requirements, assignments, evaluation procedures, and other contents of this syllabus are subject to change. Students' experiences and needs, as well as emerging knowledge, will be considered in modifying this course syllabus. Also, please know that in this time of COVID-19, if I become ill, the course will continue even if I cannot. 


Huh?  How does a class continue without the teacher?

So students don't demand an automatic A if their professor drops dead?
Sort of like the urban legend that if your roommate dies you automatically pass/get all As/etc.  We know that's not true or else half of our pre-med students would be offed in every Fall.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: onthefringe on July 21, 2020, 12:20:13 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 21, 2020, 07:31:37 AM
Quote from: Economizer on July 21, 2020, 07:23:41 AM
COORECTION: ADMINIICRITTERS

Also, folks above a certain age are governmentally determined to be at risk. Is it possible that educators that stand above that threshold will be blocked from classroom/campus work?

At risk of contracting the disease or of dying from it? It ought to be my decision how much risk of death I can tolerate. At present, it is 100%.
I hope the decision will be the individual's.
Older people are more cautious than young people.

A couple points:

The current CDC risk assessment simply states that the older you are, the higher your risk for severe disease/bad outcomes. There's no longer a bright line age at which you suddenly are defined as "high risk"

Where I am we have been very firmly informed that while people can self identify as high risk and seek accommodations we can under NO circumstance even sort of suggest that specific people should teach online because of our perception of their risk.

Looking across the various news stories and concerns expressed by instructors, I see far more worry that people who want to teach online may be pressured/forced to teach in person because they do not have a risk factor they can point at that requires accommodation.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 21, 2020, 01:28:41 PM
Our cowboy-loving staff member dodged COVID-19 after the rodeo a while back.  But now she and her daughter are both sick with something.  Daughter has tested negative.  Mother admitted to feeling feverish and work and has been sent home and instructed to get tested.  We're really hoping she tests negative and that whatever she has is only a coincidence.

She just couldn't resist crossing the state line into one of the nation's most notorious hot-zone states to do some more shopping....
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 21, 2020, 02:19:20 PM
Faculty meeting about fall instruction. I have no words.... well, no PG-13 words.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on July 21, 2020, 05:26:24 PM
Quotenyone done any research/ seen any data, on what colleges did during the 1918-9 flu pandemic?  They had no access to high tech virtual teaching, of course, so what exactly did they do?

Well remember that this was hitting during WWI.  Not  a lot of people went to college in the first place.  Few women attended, and the men were volunteering or being drafted.  Some colleges would have just shut down for the war effort. 

Also note, that the name Spanish Flu is because Spain was neutral so there were no restrictions on publishing anything about the flu, so it seemed to have started there as that was who was reporting the cases. Actually, it is thought to have started in Kansas and spread to local training bases and then as the men were transferred around the country to the other bases and surrounding populations.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 22, 2020, 02:01:22 PM
Our city council uses our library community room for its meeting space.  Monday evening they met after we closed down for over two hours (They had a full agenda).  I did not attend.  Evidently they had a room full.  People were wearing masks, but had insufficient room to social distance.  We plan on not going into that room for the next several days.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 22, 2020, 06:28:32 PM
Another faculty member told me that they are going to 1/4 face to face instead of 1/2. So, students will be physically present in classes about once a month. Does this make any sense to anyone?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on July 23, 2020, 01:03:00 AM
In answer to the last question, it's thought that at least some in-person classroom experience is more engaging than none, and universities are all desperate to retain students. In addition, being required to come to class sometimes, even if only once a month, means students will move to campus instead of taking their courses from their parents' house. A huge part of university funding comes from the housing and the food service. Without that revenue, many colleges simply won't survive, and even the ones that do will take a huge financial hit. Hence the desperate plans to get students physically back on campus.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 23, 2020, 04:15:26 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on July 23, 2020, 01:03:00 AM
In answer to the last question, it's thought that at least some in-person classroom experience is more engaging than none, and universities are all desperate to retain students. In addition, being required to come to class sometimes, even if only once a month, means students will move to campus instead of taking their courses from their parents' house. A huge part of university funding comes from the housing and the food service. Without that revenue, many colleges simply won't survive, and even the ones that do will take a huge financial hit. Hence the desperate plans to get students physically back on campus.

Right. Housing = Money.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 23, 2020, 07:20:23 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 23, 2020, 04:15:26 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on July 23, 2020, 01:03:00 AM
In answer to the last question, it's thought that at least some in-person classroom experience is more engaging than none, and universities are all desperate to retain students. In addition, being required to come to class sometimes, even if only once a month, means students will move to campus instead of taking their courses from their parents' house. A huge part of university funding comes from the housing and the food service. Without that revenue, many colleges simply won't survive, and even the ones that do will take a huge financial hit. Hence the desperate plans to get students physically back on campus.

Right. Housing = Money.

That's an awful lot of money for living on campus under quarantine and attending class on 1/4 of the time.  Sure doesn't sound like a good deal to me.  How many students will find it worthwhile?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on July 23, 2020, 08:00:12 AM
Quote from: apl68 on July 23, 2020, 07:20:23 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 23, 2020, 04:15:26 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on July 23, 2020, 01:03:00 AM
In answer to the last question, it's thought that at least some in-person classroom experience is more engaging than none, and universities are all desperate to retain students. In addition, being required to come to class sometimes, even if only once a month, means students will move to campus instead of taking their courses from their parents' house. A huge part of university funding comes from the housing and the food service. Without that revenue, many colleges simply won't survive, and even the ones that do will take a huge financial hit. Hence the desperate plans to get students physically back on campus.

Right. Housing = Money.

That's an awful lot of money for living on campus under quarantine and attending class on 1/4 of the time.  Sure doesn't sound like a good deal to me.  How many students will find it worthwhile?

Especially given that for the other 3/4 of the time on campus, they're still subject to virtually the same risk of covid due to being around so many people, just without the classes.

"Almost all the risk! Almost none of the classes!"

Can't wait to see that on ads.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on July 23, 2020, 08:22:32 AM
QuoteAnother faculty member told me that they are going to 1/4 face to face instead of 1/2. So, students will be physically present in classes about once a month. Does this make any sense to anyone?

Quote
That's an awful lot of money for living on campus under quarantine and attending class on 1/4 of the time.  Sure doesn't sound like a good deal to me.  How many students will find it worthwhile?

Local news had an interview with an incoming freshman who was had called the TV station to report/complain that he was unable to get out of his student housing contract!  He is a freshman and I believe that we have a requirement that freshman live on campus, even though he lives only 40 miles or so from campus.  As a lot of classes have gone hybrid, he wanted to stay home, in part because he said that he could not trust that his dorm mate(s) would follow social distancing and not be partying it up and risking HIS health.

The university president gave a weeny response.  She said that the university is looking into it, but that the housing is managed by a company in the state capital.  .... Hmmmm...  I am not positive, but I would not be surprised that the university OWNS the buildings (built on university property just a few years ago). Im not sure that the managers of student housing are not an arm of the university system (a common location running student housing on all campuses?).  (I dont know who manages the housing, but as I said, I think we own it)

Except that we DONT own it!  Those buildings were not built for CASH!  I would certainly not be surprised that the university in on the hook for the debt!  (It would not surprise me that another company built the buildings, gets a large share of the money from that, but that the debt is some sort of tax exempt debt backed/issued by the university!  SO if no students are there to pay the interest, WE STILL have to pay the interest from our budget. 

So the bottom line is that it is all about the money!  IF the students dont pay, then remember that the biggest expense a university faces is faculty salaries! 

So the circle looks like this:  Faculty want to live, so insist on online delivery (so dont need to pay for parking either).  Students dont want 'dorm living' for online delivery, so they stay home.  NO dorm rent (or parking fees), means that the university has to furlough or flat fire faculty and staff to pay for the dorm (and parking garage) debt. 

Be careful what you ask for!  It IS about the money!   
Big fish eat little fish. NO little fish and the big fish starve!   (Alternatively, Dung beetles depend on dung.  NO dung producers, dung beetles starve). 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on July 23, 2020, 09:37:35 AM
Yes, a lot of, if not most, dorm construction is financed by bond debt.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 23, 2020, 10:05:36 AM
Quote from: apl68 on July 23, 2020, 07:20:23 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 23, 2020, 04:15:26 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on July 23, 2020, 01:03:00 AM
In answer to the last question, it's thought that at least some in-person classroom experience is more engaging than none, and universities are all desperate to retain students. In addition, being required to come to class sometimes, even if only once a month, means students will move to campus instead of taking their courses from their parents' house. A huge part of university funding comes from the housing and the food service. Without that revenue, many colleges simply won't survive, and even the ones that do will take a huge financial hit. Hence the desperate plans to get students physically back on campus.

Right. Housing = Money.

That's an awful lot of money for living on campus under quarantine and attending class on 1/4 of the time.  Sure doesn't sound like a good deal to me.  How many students will find it worthwhile?

I know everyone feels frustrated and anxious, but is there really a need for quite so much angry cynicism which doesn't attempt to understand some of the differing motivations of students or the complexity of the situation?

Many students might prefer to live on campus. For some, it could be the only safe option available. Others, even if their situations are less dire, might have a much easier time taking classes while living away from family. Living with family could actually put some students at high risk of being infected if their families can't simply work from home. Living on campus certainly might mean that students are less likely to infect people in their families who might be at higher risk. This stuff is complicated and not everything is down to the greed and evil of college administrators.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on July 23, 2020, 10:25:08 AM
It's a fair point that most admininstrators are acting in good faith and are doing the best given the constraints put on them. Even in cases where schools are forcing faculty to return to the classrooms against their own preferences, the worst that administrators can be accused of is just not recognizing the rights of the faculty and not caring about their concerns. Although a lot of them are paid well, rarely are they in it just for personal profit. If they were, they would pursue jobs in higher paying areas.

Nevertheless, I still think it is true that decisions are basically about the money. Most colleges are in a precarious financial situation and in many cases it's clear that the school may not survive. Administrators are put in difficult positions trying to keep their schools viable, but they can't say that's why they are making the decisions they are, because that would just scare students and parents away.



Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on July 23, 2020, 11:06:51 AM
This is from the beginning of the situation, but it was an interesting read, I found.

   https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/exodus-from-cambridge/

What struck me was something someone else mentioned recently, the fact that students seem to be actively curating their 'college experience,' deciding where they'd like to return to for dinners out, how they'd like to shape their social circles, etc, more intentionally, almost like a work of conceptual art.

I was mostly just interested in getting to class (by bike from my folks home, at first, or walking, later, after I moved to a shared church-based rooming house on campus), getting my school work done and in on time, and teaching my dance and music students and performing my playing jobs (which I'd started to do once out of high school) properly.

But the student's journalling of the departure from her school was an interesting one.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on July 23, 2020, 11:13:08 AM
Can anyone fill us in on how other nations are handling school and the pandemic? 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on July 23, 2020, 12:48:23 PM
Quote from: Anselm on July 23, 2020, 11:13:08 AM
Can anyone fill us in on how other nations are handling school and the pandemic?

In this province, students in elementary and middle school (whatever that is; we didn't have it, where I come from) are currently looking at a full return (they went back part-time in June). AFAIK high school is still looking mostly/all online. But all the details--including distancing, masking, etc.--are still being ironed out.

And our case and death rates have been flat for months, and are pretty low period, although re-opening has resulted in some spiking.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morden on July 23, 2020, 01:03:02 PM
Our province is planning for face to face in fall for K-12, but doesn't plan to give any more money to school boards for extra cleaning, PPE etc. So we'll see how long that lasts.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 23, 2020, 01:12:28 PM
Quote from: mamselle on July 23, 2020, 11:06:51 AM
This is from the beginning of the situation, but it was an interesting read, I found.

   https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/exodus-from-cambridge/

What struck me was something someone else mentioned recently, the fact that students seem to be actively curating their 'college experience,' deciding where they'd like to return to for dinners out, how they'd like to shape their social circles, etc, more intentionally, almost like a work of conceptual art.

I was mostly just interested in getting to class (by bike from my folks home, at first, or walking, later, after I moved to a shared church-based rooming house on campus), getting my school work done and in on time, and teaching my dance and music students and performing my playing jobs (which I'd started to do once out of high school) properly.

But the student's journalling of the departure from her school was an interesting one.

M.

One more story of the Plague Year, out of untold millions.  Happier than many.

When I was at college I naively supposed that I was there to attend school.  My parents actually had to tell me to get more involved on campus.  And they were right to do so.

As for the eating out experiences...well, let's just say that one of the biggest excitements I recall on campus during my four years there was the news that a Taco Bell was opening only five miles away.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ciao_yall on July 23, 2020, 01:30:51 PM
Quote from: Morden on July 23, 2020, 01:03:02 PM
Our province is planning for face to face in fall for K-12, but doesn't plan to give any more money to school boards for extra cleaning, PPE etc. So we'll see how long that lasts.

Our K-12 district can't afford to open in the Fall because they can't afford portable sinks, soap, and paper towels needed to maintain hygiene.

So they got a huge donation from one of the local tech godzillionaires for laptops and wifi hotspots.

What is wrong with this picture?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on July 23, 2020, 01:35:28 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on July 23, 2020, 01:30:51 PM

Our K-12 district can't afford to open in the Fall because they can't afford portable sinks, soap, and paper towels needed to maintain hygiene.

So they got a huge donation from one of the local tech godzillionaires for laptops and wifi hotspots.

What is wrong with this picture?

Lurking mothracites?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on July 23, 2020, 01:39:57 PM
Our Uni has created some online COVID-19 training module that EVERYONE- students, faculty, staff etc. must complete before the start of the semester. They rolled it out to faculty yesterday.

Now it's crashed. Apparently it won't let in any faculty that aren't teaching a summer class. So they tried to fix it and now it won't let in faculty who ARE teaching a summer class.

This is going to go so well!
The faculty Zoom town hall tomorrow afternoon should be a good one.
I'm so glad all my classes are online. I'll just sit here in my home office until 2021.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on July 23, 2020, 01:50:52 PM
I suspect that many students have a different motive for returning to campus, as follows: 

Quote from: Caracal on July 23, 2020, 10:05:36 AM
Many students might prefer to live on campus. For some, it could be the only safe option availableplace to get laid regularly. Others, even if their situations are less dire, might have a much easier time taking classes getting laid while living away from family. Living with family could actually put some students at high risk of being infected if their families can't simply work from homegetting laid less often. Living on campus certainly might mean that students are less likely to infect people in their families who might be at higher riskabstain from getting laid. This stuff is complicated and not everything is down to the greed and evil of college administrators.

Those college years don't last forever.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 23, 2020, 02:15:08 PM
Quote from: writingprof on July 23, 2020, 01:50:52 PM
I suspect that many students have a different motive for returning to campus, as follows: 

Quote from: Caracal on July 23, 2020, 10:05:36 AM
Many students might prefer to live on campus. For some, it could be the only safe option availableplace to get laid regularly. Others, even if their situations are less dire, might have a much easier time taking classes getting laid while living away from family. Living with family could actually put some students at high risk of being infected if their families can't simply work from homegetting laid less often. Living on campus certainly might mean that students are less likely to infect people in their families who might be at higher riskabstain from getting laid. This stuff is complicated and not everything is down to the greed and evil of college administrators.

Those college years don't last forever.

Ha!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Larimar on July 23, 2020, 02:23:12 PM
Quote from: mythbuster on July 23, 2020, 01:39:57 PM
I'm so glad all my classes are online. I'll just sit here in my home office until 2021.

Me too!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: zyzzx on July 23, 2020, 02:27:35 PM
Quote from: Anselm on July 23, 2020, 11:13:08 AM
Can anyone fill us in on how other nations are handling school and the pandemic?

In properly managed countries it's not nearly so fraught. With the numbers beat down via lockdown, good contact tracing, plenty of testing, and a population willing to obey the rules, a whole new world opens up. Schools where I live started opening incrementally a few months ago, and it went ok. They are planned to be open in the fall (assuming no changes in the numbers). Masks, distancing, and handwashing, of course. Daycares have also been open for months. Universities are just finishing a fully online semester and I think the general plan for many is for a mix of online and in-person classes for the next semester, aiming for in-person for the courses where that is most beneficial. Of course, the financial picture for universities here is completely different, as they are publicly funded, charge no tuition, and there are no dorms to make money off of. Life here in general is actually pretty much back to normal (at least for me), aside from the masks. My institute is open, as well as restaurants, bars, stores, and pretty much everything except clubs and really big gatherings. The only thing I'm missing now is travelling outside the EU.

And the thing is, this return to near normalcy actually appears pretty safe. Our state has been sitting at single digit numbers of cases per day for months, so the opening up has been going well. We also have testing, contact tracing, quarantines with a lot of followup for contacts, and a government ready and willing to ramp up restrictions if certain limits are hit. I'm sure that this will happen at some point, but with good surveillance, I'm confident that flare-ups will be caught before they're out of control.

So sure, schools can reopen safely, but not in the US. Without good general pandemic management, I think that everything else is just a band-aid. It's really depressing (and infuriating) to see how screwed up things are over there. 
 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on July 23, 2020, 03:06:48 PM
Quote from: Larimar on July 23, 2020, 02:23:12 PM
Quote from: mythbuster on July 23, 2020, 01:39:57 PM
I'm so glad all my classes are online. I'll just sit here in my home office until 2021.

Me too!

Me, too, but only if it's sustainable.  Problem: It isn't.  If I'm sitting at home, watching Netflix, writing, and teaching my six classes a year, it's not clear why I'm being paid literally five times more than adjuncts with the same workload.  Presumably, my administrators will eventually rectify this disparity.  They will not do so by bumping up the adjuncts' pay.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 23, 2020, 03:33:14 PM
Quote from: Larimar on July 23, 2020, 02:23:12 PM
Quote from: mythbuster on July 23, 2020, 01:39:57 PM
I'm so glad all my classes are online. I'll just sit here in my home office until 2021.

Me too!

I have been trying to get permission to do this for the last three weeks. but haven't heard back from HR despite numerous emails. I have underlying health conditions and I'm trying to not panic about this.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on July 23, 2020, 08:59:55 PM
Depressing and infuriating it obviously must be, but I am wondering just exactly how pathetic the US must appear over there now, and I can probably think of a few more adjectives as well.   Indeed, just exactly how much worse an image does the US have now, than it did before Trump came to power?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on July 24, 2020, 06:01:06 AM
Well, the UK has Boris, so there's that...

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on July 24, 2020, 07:27:03 AM
Quote from: mamselle on July 24, 2020, 06:01:06 AM
Well, the UK has Boris, so there's that...

M.

Competing to be the best-looking horse in the glue factory isn't much consolation.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on July 24, 2020, 01:17:02 PM
Exactement.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on July 24, 2020, 01:47:38 PM
Starting Monday (7/27), non-essential travelers from high risk areas to DC will need to self-quarantine as ordered by Mayor Bowser today:
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/07/dc-coronavirus-update-july-24/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/07/dc-coronavirus-update-july-24/)
Maryland and Virginia are exempted.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: zyzzx on July 24, 2020, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: AmLitHist on July 24, 2020, 07:27:03 AM
Quote from: mamselle on July 24, 2020, 06:01:06 AM
Well, the UK has Boris, so there's that...

M.

Competing to be the best-looking horse in the glue factory isn't much consolation.

Yeah, I know some UK folks who admitted to being relieved that they were no longer the ugliest horse at the glue factory after the 2016 election. Because of course Boris is just the follow-on to Brexit.
In general, people over here seem confused, horrified, and a little bit amused by what's going on in the US. There is certainly some schadenfreude, but as the effects increasingly hit ordinary people, some compassion as well. I think everyone is really just waiting for this nightmare to be over.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on July 24, 2020, 02:29:51 PM
Quote from: zyzzx on July 24, 2020, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: AmLitHist on July 24, 2020, 07:27:03 AM
Quote from: mamselle on July 24, 2020, 06:01:06 AM
Well, the UK has Boris, so there's that...

M.

Competing to be the best-looking horse in the glue factory isn't much consolation.

I'm going out on a limb and say if I were a horse I'd prefer to be the ugliest one not IN the glue factory.

Yeah, I know some UK folks who admitted to being relieved that they were no longer the ugliest horse at the glue factory after the 2016 election. Because of course Boris is just the follow-on to Brexit.
In general, people over here seem confused, horrified, and a little bit amused by what's going on in the US. There is certainly some schadenfreude, but as the effects increasingly hit ordinary people, some compassion as well. I think everyone is really just waiting for this nightmare to be over.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 27, 2020, 07:59:56 AM
Quote from: apl68 on July 21, 2020, 01:28:41 PM
Our cowboy-loving staff member dodged COVID-19 after the rodeo a while back.  But now she and her daughter are both sick with something.  Daughter has tested negative.  Mother admitted to feeling feverish and work and has been sent home and instructed to get tested.  We're really hoping she tests negative and that whatever she has is only a coincidence.

She just couldn't resist crossing the state line into one of the nation's most notorious hot-zone states to do some more shopping....

So, early Saturday afternoon I learned that the staff member above had indeed tested positive for COVID-19.  I spent much of the afternoon on the phone with other staff members, our Board of Trustees vice-president, and somebody from the state Department of Health trying to determine whether any of the rest of us had come into close contact with her in the days leading up to her getting sick.  She had been mostly staying her office, managing our library social media and such from there. 

I had been urging staff members to do a better job of practicing social distancing among ourselves.  Looks like the message was getting through.  We determined that none of us had been in close contact.  So, as of this morning, we're still open for business.  Our potential Typhoid Mary is still recuperating at home.  Looks like she has not had a very bad case of it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on August 01, 2020, 01:18:55 PM
Hygiene theater:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/scourge-hygiene-theater/614599/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/scourge-hygiene-theater/614599/).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on August 01, 2020, 05:14:15 PM
There's a ton of tourists around, and almost nobody is masking. Especially in the whiter areas (which, admittedly, are fewer in number than the non-white areas). Sigh.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on August 02, 2020, 02:39:28 AM
Model of cruise ship infection points to aerosol transmission:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/health/diamond-princess-coronavirus-aerosol.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/health/diamond-princess-coronavirus-aerosol.html).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: eigen on August 02, 2020, 01:31:17 PM
Quote from: writingprof on July 23, 2020, 03:06:48 PM
Quote from: Larimar on July 23, 2020, 02:23:12 PM
Quote from: mythbuster on July 23, 2020, 01:39:57 PM
I'm so glad all my classes are online. I'll just sit here in my home office until 2021.

Me too!

Me, too, but only if it's sustainable.  Problem: It isn't.  If I'm sitting at home, watching Netflix, writing, and teaching my six classes a year, it's not clear why I'm being paid literally five times more than adjuncts with the same workload.  Presumably, my administrators will eventually rectify this disparity.  They will not do so by bumping up the adjuncts' pay.

I've got to ask, how are you avoiding all of the other responsibilities of an (I assume) TT job, since you're comparing it to adjunct pay?

My workload has kicked up by about 50%, and I'm still swamped with student advising, running a research program with both my own scholarship and with students, writing, applying for grants, having regular committee meetings, etc.

The only difference is where I'm doing it, not the work I'm putting in.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on August 03, 2020, 03:55:50 AM
This is the first time I've seen faculty directly advising students to stay home, while the admin encourages them to come to campus.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/08/03/unc-chapel-hill-faculty-students-stay-home

Then there is the UNC faculty and stuff lawsuit (https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2020/07/29/unc-faculty--staff-prepare-lawsuit-to-delay-in-person-classes) also trying to delay the fall opening.

I've been hearing that the NYC teaching unions are prepared to file suit if there are not sufficient safeguards for teachers, and they are not yet satisfied that there are.

Seems like by Labor Day there may well be a lot of court action about openings. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mahagonny on August 03, 2020, 08:20:46 AM
Quote from: downer on August 03, 2020, 03:55:50 AM
This is the first time I've seen faculty directly advising students to stay home, while the admin encourages them to come to campus.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/08/03/unc-chapel-hill-faculty-students-stay-home

From the article:

'As for only 30 professors acting on their own, the letter says that as "tenured faculty, we are among the most privileged members of the UNC-Chapel Hill community. One of the greatest benefits of our position is having the chance to share ideas, and discover new knowledge, with you. But neither our research nor our teaching is as important to us as the health, safety, and well-being of our students and our colleagues, including the staff and campus workers who make our teaching and research possible."'

Good rule: when a group of powerful people asks you to  do something a certain way for your own good  and how you do it will affect them also, they are probably thinking of themselves. Kids don't die from it, 50+ adults do. Especially likely when they can't resist tooting their own horn  while they're at it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on August 04, 2020, 01:56:53 PM
Now, please excuse me for inquiring about an "unthinkable". Are or could there be factions or forces that are attempting to turn the "pandemic" into a "pogrom"?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on August 04, 2020, 03:54:28 PM
Quote from: Economizer on August 04, 2020, 01:56:53 PM
Now, please excuse me for inquiring about an "unthinkable". Are or could there be factions or forces that are attempting to turn the "pandemic" into a "pogrom"?
What do you mean by "pogrom" here, and whom do you believe it would be targeting?  That's an interesting (and loaded) word choice.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on August 04, 2020, 06:11:36 PM
I thought my question was clear enough. But, does anyone suppose that there are
people complicating or not cooperating with cure and recovery efforts in order to further their, and/or, their compatriots intentions to gain money and power? A GRAND SCHEME, SO TO SPEAK.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on August 04, 2020, 06:26:37 PM
Quote from: Economizer on August 04, 2020, 06:11:36 PM
I thought my question was clear enough. But, does anyone suppose that there are
people complicating or not cooperating with cure and recovery efforts in order to further their, and/or, their compatriots intentions to gain money and power? A GRAND SCHEME, SO TO SPEAK.

You mean Trump and his lackeys?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on August 04, 2020, 06:40:58 PM
Nope. Other suggestions?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on August 04, 2020, 10:08:45 PM
So, in the active midst of this pandemic, who is going to launch this pogrom, against whom, and how?  Don't make us guess, be as specific as you can be, and lard up those specifics with as much verifiable evidence as you can.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on August 05, 2020, 12:42:14 AM
Can't do it because I do not have evidence of it. I'm sorry now that I bought it up..
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on August 05, 2020, 03:26:21 AM
Quote from: Economizer on August 05, 2020, 12:42:14 AM
Can't do it because I do not have evidence of it.

Yet you believe it?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on August 05, 2020, 05:21:31 AM
I only believe the word POGROM exists. And, that it came into being because of some events in the past. Also, Ii think that there should be some awareness that those events could exist again either as natural phenomena, or the evill intent of humans. So, there's your plot. Now get started with that script!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: RatGuy on August 05, 2020, 05:24:52 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on August 05, 2020, 03:26:21 AM
Yet you believe it?

Isn't this how all great conspiracy theories work? "I'm hypothesizing some "grand scheme" that can't be proven because all evidence of it has been scrubbed from the universe because of the insidious actions of the Grand Schemers? And for those predisposed to believe such conspiracies, the lack of evidence is actually the ultimate evidence? Even so, isn't the fact that your ideological enemies disbelieve your theory proof enough that it's true?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on August 05, 2020, 06:25:05 AM
Quote from: RatGuy on August 05, 2020, 05:24:52 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on August 05, 2020, 03:26:21 AM
Yet you believe it?

Isn't this how all great conspiracy theories work? "I'm hypothesizing some "grand scheme" that can't be proven because all evidence of it has been scrubbed from the universe because of the insidious actions of the Grand Schemers? And for those predisposed to believe such conspiracies, the lack of evidence is actually the ultimate evidence? Even so, isn't the fact that your ideological enemies disbelieve your theory proof enough that it's true?

And it doesn't matter if the plan would make no sense. Are we supposed to believe that schools have decided that this is a great opportunity to kill off all their faculty? That would be a very strange plan since COVID, while very dangerous, isn't actually deadly enough to make that work...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on August 05, 2020, 10:16:24 AM
Quote from: Economizer on August 05, 2020, 05:21:31 AM
I only believe the word POGROM exists. And, that it came into being because of some events in the past. Also, Ii think that there should be some awareness that those events could exist again either as natural phenomena, or the evill intent of humans. So, there's your plot. Now get started with that script!

Maybe take this discussion over to a Q Anon board somewhere. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on August 05, 2020, 10:19:12 AM
As Trump is wont to say, "(many) people are saying".  And this propaganda entree does often suck in and sway his beloved "poorly educated".   We gotta be better than this around here.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on August 05, 2020, 11:55:39 AM
Sarcasm alert: I do not mean this, or wish it:

The only likely pogrom is that all the stupid people, who find their senses of self and of virtue to be enacted only in the pursuit of being stupid, will stupid themselves (as well as innocent others) into a free, maskless, sectarian-driven death by Covid.

Leaving the intelligent people to run the world....if they survive the actions of the stupid ones.

/sarcasm]

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on August 05, 2020, 01:07:05 PM
My father just went to the doctor today for feeling lethargic and having a low level of blood oxygen saturation.  He was told to get a Covid-19 test.  He called five testing sites and each one told him he is not sick enough to qualify for an appointment.  This is in Cook County, Illinois.  He finally found one but he has to drive into downtown Chicago, 30 miles away.   I am currently staying with my parents this summer but so far I have not felt any symptoms.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on August 05, 2020, 01:15:00 PM
Quote from: Anselm on August 05, 2020, 01:07:05 PM
My father just went to the doctor today for feeling lethargic and having a low level of blood oxygen saturation.  He was told to get a Covid-19 test.  He called five testing sites and each one told him he is not sick enough to qualify for an appointment.  This is in Cook County, Illinois.  He finally found one but he has to drive into downtown Chicago, 30 miles away.   I am currently staying with my parents this summer but so far I have not felt any symptoms.

Ugh. I'm sorry. The whole thing with testing is still such a mess. Hoping for the best. You have to remember that lots of people are still getting all kinds of garden variety illnesses. Those are the sort of symptoms that could be Covid, but could be nothing at all. I know quite a few people now who were sick, got tests and they were negative.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: sprout on August 05, 2020, 04:59:50 PM
I have a family member who's running a fever.  They were told they can't see the doctor until either a) the fever is gone or b) after a two-week quarantine.   When asked what if it's something other than covid causing the fever, that needs treatment, the scheduler/nurse/asistant's response was....um....I'll get back to you on that.  Oh, and they've been told they can't get tested until they're showing two symptoms.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on August 05, 2020, 05:27:48 PM
Ok, but I'm gonna make a  note in my datebook app to revisit the subject in 3 weeks.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on August 05, 2020, 09:38:14 PM
Quote from: Anselm on August 05, 2020, 01:07:05 PM
My father just went to the doctor today for feeling lethargic and having a low level of blood oxygen saturation.  He was told to get a Covid-19 test.  He called five testing sites and each one told him he is not sick enough to qualify for an appointment.  This is in Cook County, Illinois.  He finally found one but he has to drive into downtown Chicago, 30 miles away.   I am currently staying with my parents this summer but so far I have not felt any symptoms.
If you want to get a COVID test and local public health infrastructure isn't up to standards, you can now also get good home test kits that should be processed fairly quickly: https://www.pixel.labcorp.com/at-home-test-kits/covid-19-test

They're fully paid for by insurance and, if you select that you don't have insurance, are available free of charge (the federal government pays). If the questionnaire tells you that you aren't eligible, maybe think carefully about whether you might have felt some of those symptoms after all... if you have a reason for thinking you should get tested, you're doing everyone a favor by misreporting symptoms in order to get tested. The only reason testing kits are limited to people with certain symptoms is because that's when the federal government has decided it'll pick up the tab.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on August 06, 2020, 04:34:45 AM
Quote from: Economizer on August 05, 2020, 05:27:48 PM
Ok, but I'm gonna make a  note in my datebook app to revisit the subject in 3 weeks.

Well aren't we lucky.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on August 06, 2020, 05:55:58 AM
Look at the charts: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/06/us/united-states-failure-coronavirus.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/06/us/united-states-failure-coronavirus.html). The USA is probably going to have at least 200,000 Covid-19 deaths by the end of the calendar year.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on August 06, 2020, 06:51:22 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on August 06, 2020, 04:34:45 AM
Quote from: Economizer on August 05, 2020, 05:27:48 PM
Ok, but I'm gonna make a  note in my datebook app to revisit the subject in 3 weeks.

Well aren't we lucky.

Ah..nuevosnark!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on August 06, 2020, 07:18:39 AM
^ Anselm, meanwhile, here in downstate (metro StL) IL, they're having free testing once a week at our county fairgrounds, and in surrounding counties even more frequently.  Drive up, no symptoms required, free tests.  Of course, we're part of an outbreak/rise in cases in recent weeks (largely because the local inbred mouthbreathers are of the "God, guts, guns, and you can't make me wear a damned mask" persuasion, and because lake party beer bashes and get-togethers have been going on since mid-April, unabated and more numerous than past summers.  Of course--nobody's working around here, so they might as well get together all day every day and fish, ski, and drink).  Life in Trump country.

And yes, my county is one of several suing the state because the governor overstepped his authority by shutting things down back in March.  Irony is not a concept the locals understand. 

I hope your father and all of your family are OK. Stay well.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on August 06, 2020, 08:24:17 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on August 06, 2020, 07:18:39 AM
^ Anselm, meanwhile, here in downstate (metro StL) IL, they're having free testing once a week at our county fairgrounds, and in surrounding counties even more frequently.  Drive up, no symptoms required, free tests.

Tests are plentiful where hardly anybody needs them. Supply and demand gone haywire (supply not shifting to keep up with local demand).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on August 06, 2020, 01:28:56 PM
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2769235 (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2769235)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on August 06, 2020, 03:39:35 PM
Quote from: sprout on August 05, 2020, 04:59:50 PM
I have a family member who's running a fever.  They were told they can't see the doctor until either a) the fever is gone or b) after a two-week quarantine.   When asked what if it's something other than covid causing the fever, that needs treatment, the scheduler/nurse/asistant's response was....um....I'll get back to you on that.  Oh, and they've been told they can't get tested until they're showing two symptoms.

That's ridiculous!  What if they have an bacterial infection or something else that will not go away on it's own without treatment?  Makes you understand why folks who can't get treatment for something because it's "not an emergency" end up the the ER.
Might be time to look the list of all possible symptoms and see if they have had any of them in the past week or so.  A headache seems pretty damn easy to get now days . . . (hint, hint).

Fever or chills
Cough
Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
Fatigue
Muscle or body aches
Headache
New loss of taste or smell
Sore throat
Congestion or runny nose
Nausea or vomiting
Diarrhea
Rash
Blue toes
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on August 07, 2020, 02:48:38 AM
Here in Oz I'm in 14 days self isolation simply because I was in the same pub at the same time as someone who was Covid positive. I've been tested - free and negative - and the health department follows up daily by text.

Not complaining.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on August 10, 2020, 07:53:46 AM
Our janitor is now out sick and awaiting the results of a COVID test.  She gets her work done mostly before the other staff arrive and hasn't had much close contact with the rest of us, but still....
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on August 10, 2020, 09:16:40 AM
Uh-oh, you said another diagnosis could close you down, is that the case now?

Hope not...

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on August 10, 2020, 10:22:43 AM
Quote from: mamselle on August 10, 2020, 09:16:40 AM
Uh-oh, you said another diagnosis could close you down, is that the case now?

Hope not...

M.

No, because she isn't a direct public service staff member.  Also, it appears that our previous sick employee will be released to come back to work soon.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on August 11, 2020, 08:09:30 AM
We've seen occasional refusals to wear masks here at the library.  This morning I learned that we had a visitor yesterday who flashed a laminated card that purported to be an official exemption issued by the state.  I checked this morning and found that it's a scam.  I've told the staff to call me if anybody tries to scam them like that again. 

Between grant applications, preparing for the back-to-school surge, malfunctioning burglar alarms going off in the middle of the night, sick staff members, chronically worried staff members, etc. I've got better things to do than deal with ridiculous mask exemption scammers.  Plus this is the week of our mayoral election, and I'm hoping we don't have a change of boss in City Hall to deal with.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on August 11, 2020, 10:29:35 AM
I'm just back from a regular 3-month checkup with my internist.  He signed ADA request paperwork for me to remain off-campus "until such time as a safe and effective vaccine is widely available in [the metro area where I teach]."  I'm currently scheduled all online, plus one "live video lecture"/synchronous section for fall, but while all my sections are filled, most colleagues' aren't.  I can see my chair getting the bright idea to switch people around and, with me being low man on the seniority list, trying to push me to come and teach F2F.  Nope.  NOT happening (as I'm high-risk by three CDC factors).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on August 11, 2020, 10:57:27 AM
Several possible messages there:

   a) students know and like your teaching/work;
   b) they know you've done online before and you can do it well;
   c) more people want online than the admin folks dream of;
   d) your colleagues are known for NOT being good at online teaching.

Or some combination thereof.

But in any case, good for you.

And for having your necessary pieces of paper to wave around in the face of anyone trying to do you down otherwise....

;--]

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: wareagle on August 12, 2020, 09:00:37 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 16, 2020, 03:49:07 PM
Quote from: apl68 on July 16, 2020, 12:47:01 PM
Our governor has just mandated wearing of masks in public!  Belated, but at least it's happening now.  And I don't anticipate his being sabotaged by the legislature as has happened elsewhere.

Now we'll see how much the measure actually helps.  Masks are a really good idea, but they're not a cure-all.

Our governor is a dumb ass.

We must live in the same state.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 12, 2020, 09:52:15 AM
Quote from: wareagle on August 12, 2020, 09:00:37 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 16, 2020, 03:49:07 PM
Quote from: apl68 on July 16, 2020, 12:47:01 PM
Our governor has just mandated wearing of masks in public!  Belated, but at least it's happening now.  And I don't anticipate his being sabotaged by the legislature as has happened elsewhere.

Now we'll see how much the measure actually helps.  Masks are a really good idea, but they're not a cure-all.

Our governor is a dumb ass.

We must live in the same state.

Or maybe adjacent states.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: PhilRunner on August 13, 2020, 02:43:46 PM
A friend just sent me this about her school:

http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2020/08/13/the-reopening-picture-at-appalachian-state-is-not-a-pretty-one/

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on August 13, 2020, 05:20:33 PM
Quote from: PhilRunner on August 13, 2020, 02:43:46 PM
A friend just sent me this about her school:
http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2020/08/13/the-reopening-picture-at-appalachian-state-is-not-a-pretty-one/

Depressing.  Many university leaders and their assistants will have much to answer for in the coming weeks and months.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: histchick on August 14, 2020, 07:21:35 AM
Our state's university system is holding classes on-campus.  Institutions have very little leeway in schedule, even for people who have health-related accommodations.  I live in a hotspot.  A honest-to-goodness NYT near-to-top-of-the-list hotspot. 

Classes just started, and nearly half of my students didn't show up for the first day.  What the hell are we actually doing here? 

Maybe this needs to be on the Venting Thread.  Sorry. 

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on August 14, 2020, 08:11:53 AM
Quote from: histchick on August 14, 2020, 07:21:35 AM
Classes just started, and nearly half of my students didn't show up for the first day.  What the hell are we actually doing here? 

Charades?  More likely Facades.  The idea is: "If we build it they will come.  If they don't, we did our part.  Don't blame us."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on August 14, 2020, 10:57:18 AM
Quote from: FishProf on August 14, 2020, 08:11:53 AM
Quote from: histchick on August 14, 2020, 07:21:35 AM
Classes just started, and nearly half of my students didn't show up for the first day.  What the hell are we actually doing here? 

Charades?  More likely Facades.  The idea is: "If we build it they will come.  If they don't, we did our part.  Don't blame us."

The future is now. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB1X4o-MV6o)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on August 14, 2020, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: FishProf on August 14, 2020, 08:11:53 AM
Quote from: histchick on August 14, 2020, 07:21:35 AM
Classes just started, and nearly half of my students didn't show up for the first day.  What the hell are we actually doing here? 

Charades?  More likely Facades.  The idea is: "If we build it they will come.  If they don't, we did our part.  Don't blame us."

This is exactly what my place is doing with our F2F classes, and the "live virtual lecture" (LVL) sections (synchronous sessions), too.  When many of us with high-risk status begged for Admin to put our F2F sections online, they said, "Nope.  We have too many sections online already.  Our students need to be F2F to learn, and they want these F2F seats available."

Uh, really?  Then why have my online classes all been filled to capacity since mid-July, with more online sections being added every week, but my one LVL is made at half-capacity and the other (elective) LVL will get cut because it's remained in single digits all this time?  And why are my dept. colleagues who only have fully LVL sections nowhere close to making load--in fact, most are doing good to be at half-capacity in ONE section, if that? 

Of course, this is the same Admin that told us last year, "We've decided to go back to a MWF / TR schedule--students have begged for the MWF to return instead of just the MW and TR options."  As soon as students heard of the change, they went on a warpath, refusing to sign up for the MWF sections:  most of the students at our campus don't have cars and have to rely on parents, friends, or cabs for rides, or to use public buses (which often take 2+ hours to get from a student's suburb/subdivision to our campus less than 5 miles away). They most decidedly did NOT want to add an extra day of commuting.  While they could never produce ONE student who asked for the change, Admin kept the new MWF and TR schedule, and sure enough, about 40% of the MWF sections on our campus were cut for low/no enrollment, while other sections ran by just barely making (i.e., 15 of the 25 student cap), and many of those were down to 3-5 students still attending by semester's end.  This is a poor area, and our students work 40+ hours/week, care for kids and elders, etc.

What's the relevance to COVID times?  Those same students aren't wanting to commit to sitting in front of a screen two or three times a week just to stay enrolled, when they could take the same class online, do the work on their own schedule, and Zoom or Collaborate when they need help or during office hours.  And most faculty I've talked to feel the same way.  I know I sure as hell don't need an audience twice a week to satisfy my ego or whatever; since >70% of our students don't have home internet access, I expect to have very low LVL participation during the weekdays.  When they're in online classes, students can make an evening/day of it at a friend's house to use the wifi, or make other time-efficient plans to get online, rather than breaking up the week/work/child care to try to run to a hotspot to get online at a certain time for 75 minutes two or three days a week. It's asinine.

What the hell are we doing, indeed.  I'm planning to see if/how/how closely those LVLs are monitored from above and then switching mine to online, "drop in with questions during class time if you can" sessions, and then being extremely flexible via Zoom, Collaborate, etc.  The worst that can happen is I'll get a letter of insubordination in my file; they can't fire me without three such letters. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on August 14, 2020, 03:29:37 PM
Quote from: histchick on August 14, 2020, 07:21:35 AM
Classes just started, and nearly half of my students didn't show up for the first day.  What the hell are we actually doing here? 
Reminded me of restaurants in my city when they were first officially allowed to open. Lots of tables outside, everyone ready to serve brunch... I counted two occupied tables across a dozen restaurants or so that would normally be packed.

What's surprising to me is how few schools have made an actual, honest effort to find out how many students are even willing to return to campus. I've seen ridiculous reports where all the non-responders were treated as not preferring online over in-person. I can see why a school would be financially motivated to push for in person classes, so this is good publicity in the short term. But they're also burning a lot of money by having widely unrealistic beliefs about what the Fall is going to look like.

If students paid for Fall housing and they get kicked out three weeks into the semester when the school transitions to online classes, they're going to sue the university irrespective of the contract they signed.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on August 14, 2020, 08:01:55 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 12, 2020, 09:52:15 AM
Quote from: wareagle on August 12, 2020, 09:00:37 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 16, 2020, 03:49:07 PM
Quote from: apl68 on July 16, 2020, 12:47:01 PM
Our governor has just mandated wearing of masks in public!  Belated, but at least it's happening now.  And I don't anticipate his being sabotaged by the legislature as has happened elsewhere.

Now we'll see how much the measure actually helps.  Masks are a really good idea, but they're not a cure-all.

Our governor is a dumb ass.

We must live in the same state.

Or maybe adjacent states.

Truthfully, "my governor is a dumb ass" only eliminates about a quarter of the states.

I moved my youngest to college this week. Yesterday, the provost put out a message reminding people about the rules, which apparently are not being enforced in any meaningful way besides social norms (which of course work real well with incoming freshmen). Youngest said that a group of students were playing a sport and the teams were "mask" and "no mask." I've been assuming that they'll go on full lockdown by October. I may be overly optimistic.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on August 15, 2020, 03:41:06 AM
Quote from: pgher on August 14, 2020, 08:01:55 PM
Youngest said that a group of students were playing a sport and the teams were "mask" and "no mask." I've been assuming that they'll go on full lockdown by October. I may be overly optimistic.

At times, it seems like the entire USA is playing that game.  And we are ALL losing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: histchick on August 15, 2020, 08:05:00 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on August 14, 2020, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: FishProf on August 14, 2020, 08:11:53 AM
Quote from: histchick on August 14, 2020, 07:21:35 AM
Classes just started, and nearly half of my students didn't show up for the first day.  What the hell are we actually doing here? 

Charades?  More likely Facades.  The idea is: "If we build it they will come.  If they don't, we did our part.  Don't blame us."

This is exactly what my place is doing with our F2F classes, and the "live virtual lecture" (LVL) sections (synchronous sessions), too.  When many of us with high-risk status begged for Admin to put our F2F sections online, they said, "Nope.  We have too many sections online already.  Our students need to be F2F to learn, and they want these F2F seats available."

We were able to make F2F classes hybrid, but that was due to the fact that we don't have the space to physically distance a class of 35 in most classrooms.  So faculty are still actually in the classroom as much as they are in a regular classroom.   

I swear, AmLitHist, when our system does something crazy, I often wonder what yours is doing.  I have done this for years.  LVL?  That's insane. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on August 15, 2020, 10:46:11 AM
This weekend is our town's (postponed) All-City Yard Sale.  Because, by god, nobody's going to tell us we can't go out to random houses without masks and drag home other people's junk (or have people without masks congregate in our yards and garages to buy our junk)!  I had to take a lawn mower out to oldest kid's house ~ 10 miles in the country (nearest neighbor is over a mile from them--otherwise, I wouldn't have gone), and driving through our section of town was ridiculous:  cars on both sides of every street, people walking all over, and none with masks that I saw.

And, the town's small LAC is starting up F2F again this weekend; freshmen are coming in for a week of orientation.  Students come from all over the country (church-related school, and while the churches are fairly far-flung, parents tend to want to send their kids here).  Also, recruiting over the past decade has brought a large contingent of Chinese students; I don't know if they got to go home and/or will be coming back next week. 

So, between the massive yard sales and the college kids dragging who knows what from their homes and travels, I can only imagine what the case numbers here will look lie by Labor Day.  This part of the state is already on the CDC's and the Governor's sh*t lists for the rise in cases that started a few weeks ago and continues at a growing, scary pace.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on August 15, 2020, 12:04:16 PM
The little darlin's started moving into their dorm rooms yesterday after signing loud and long pledges to all the anti-covid stuff our Prez could think of.

Today, we sent a bunch of them home for a period of quarantine for unauthorized parties/gatherings.

You would think this is the first time our leadership has ever come across the species of Homo undergradicus
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on August 15, 2020, 03:15:20 PM
Ours are moving in. I opened Google Maps and looked at live traffic view of town. Every street near campus is red, as are the streets around WalMart, Target, HEB grocery, and student apartment complexes. I'm staying home.

One good outcome of coronavirus: I haven't seen a plea to help students move in! Maybe they'll forget that community-spirit-building campaign permanently?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on August 16, 2020, 05:50:55 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on August 15, 2020, 10:46:11 AM
This weekend is our town's (postponed) All-City Yard Sale.  Because, by god, nobody's going to tell us we can't go out to random houses without masks and drag home other people's junk (or have people without masks congregate in our yards and garages to buy our junk)!  I had to take a lawn mower out to oldest kid's house ~ 10 miles in the country (nearest neighbor is over a mile from them--otherwise, I wouldn't have gone), and driving through our section of town was ridiculous:  cars on both sides of every street, people walking all over, and none with masks that I saw.

And, the town's small LAC is starting up F2F again this weekend; freshmen are coming in for a week of orientation.  Students come from all over the country (church-related school, and while the churches are fairly far-flung, parents tend to want to send their kids here).  Also, recruiting over the past decade has brought a large contingent of Chinese students; I don't know if they got to go home and/or will be coming back next week. 

So, between the massive yard sales and the college kids dragging who knows what from their homes and travels, I can only imagine what the case numbers here will look lie by Labor Day.  This part of the state is already on the CDC's and the Governor's sh*t lists for the rise in cases that started a few weeks ago and continues at a growing, scary pace.

I would believe we live in the same place, except our small college is public, not denominational.  WTF is wrong with people....rhetorical.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on August 16, 2020, 08:03:52 PM
Less Than A Week After Starting Classes, UNC-Chapel Hill Reports 4 COVID-19 Clusters (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/08/16/903071127/less-than-a-week-after-starting-classes-unc-chapel-hill-reports-4-covid-19-clust)

Maybe they have the clusters contained? UNC is much larger than my campus, but still, this is a bit troubling. No word from my kid's school on any cases, but classes haven't started yet (just move-in).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on August 17, 2020, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: pgher on August 16, 2020, 08:03:52 PM
Less Than A Week After Starting Classes, UNC-Chapel Hill Reports 4 COVID-19 Clusters (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/08/16/903071127/less-than-a-week-after-starting-classes-unc-chapel-hill-reports-4-covid-19-clust)

Maybe they have the clusters contained? UNC is much larger than my campus, but still, this is a bit troubling. No word from my kid's school on any cases, but classes haven't started yet (just move-in).
...Aaaaand they're online (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/unc-chapel-hill-coronavirus-cluster/2020/08/17/8ebce060-e0ab-11ea-8181-606e603bb1c4_story.html). 


Meanwhile, in North Georgia, students are taking social distancing very seriously...or not (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/university-of-north-georgia-college-students-party-coronavirus-pandemic/).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on August 17, 2020, 01:15:02 PM
RE: pgher and namazu's posts, UNC-Chapel Hill:

QuoteIn just the past week (Aug. 10-16), we have seen COVID-19 positivity rate rise from 2.8% to 13.6% at Campus Health. As of this morning, we have tested 954 students and have 177 in isolation and 349 in quarantine, both on and off campus. So far, we have been fortunate that most students who have tested positive have demonstrated mild symptoms.

https://www.unc.edu/posts/2020/08/17/shift-to-remote-cm/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on August 17, 2020, 02:23:53 PM
Quote from: namazu on August 17, 2020, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: pgher on August 16, 2020, 08:03:52 PM
Less Than A Week After Starting Classes, UNC-Chapel Hill Reports 4 COVID-19 Clusters (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/08/16/903071127/less-than-a-week-after-starting-classes-unc-chapel-hill-reports-4-covid-19-clust)

Maybe they have the clusters contained? UNC is much larger than my campus, but still, this is a bit troubling. No word from my kid's school on any cases, but classes haven't started yet (just move-in).
...Aaaaand they're online (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/unc-chapel-hill-coronavirus-cluster/2020/08/17/8ebce060-e0ab-11ea-8181-606e603bb1c4_story.html). 


Meanwhile, in North Georgia, students are taking social distancing very seriously...or not (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/university-of-north-georgia-college-students-party-coronavirus-pandemic/).

Damn that was quick!
I think that's going to set the tone for the plans for Fall.
And my co-workers thought I was bonkers for saying we will be lucky to be back to in person classes in January 2021.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: sprout on August 17, 2020, 03:35:23 PM
Quote from: the_geneticist on August 17, 2020, 02:23:53 PM
And my co-workers thought I was bonkers for saying we will be lucky to be back to in person classes in January 2021.

I'm with you.  I don't like it, I'd be shocked if we're doing anything more in-person in winter than we're doing this fall.  Even if we have some sort of vaccine by then.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on August 17, 2020, 03:52:29 PM
Quote from: the_geneticist on August 17, 2020, 02:23:53 PM
Quote from: namazu on August 17, 2020, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: pgher on August 16, 2020, 08:03:52 PM
Less Than A Week After Starting Classes, UNC-Chapel Hill Reports 4 COVID-19 Clusters (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/08/16/903071127/less-than-a-week-after-starting-classes-unc-chapel-hill-reports-4-covid-19-clust)

Maybe they have the clusters contained? UNC is much larger than my campus, but still, this is a bit troubling. No word from my kid's school on any cases, but classes haven't started yet (just move-in).
...Aaaaand they're online (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/unc-chapel-hill-coronavirus-cluster/2020/08/17/8ebce060-e0ab-11ea-8181-606e603bb1c4_story.html). 


Meanwhile, in North Georgia, students are taking social distancing very seriously...or not (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/university-of-north-georgia-college-students-party-coronavirus-pandemic/).

Damn that was quick!
I think that's going to set the tone for the plans for Fall.
And my co-workers thought I was bonkers for saying we will be lucky to be back to in person classes in January 2021.

Well, as before, it all depends on the larger picture. I assumed back in the Spring that it would be possible to have classes in the Fall because I assumed things might be more under control. If you're trying to avoid outbreaks where they don't already exist all the mitigation strategies might work. They don't have a chance if you just bring a lot of people with Covid onto campus.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on August 17, 2020, 03:53:56 PM
After some leg work myself, I discovered a room that is bigger than my assigned room.  I asked and was granted a room change! I now only have to be on campus, in person 5 times this term!  With the original room, the admincritters expected that I would show up 10 times to that all students had 5 face to face meetings.  (I was not thrilled about 5 meetings and I was wondering how to get out of the other 5 'required' meetings).
So I have to say that I am pleased that my associate dean was able to allow me a room change (though I dont know why I would have been prevented from using an otherwise empty room!!)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on August 17, 2020, 04:45:38 PM
I'm beginning to wonder if I missed the contest announcement for "stupidest way to wear a mask." Pushed down, dangling, on top of head, dangling down back, filled with chips? Classes start a week from today.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on August 17, 2020, 04:57:10 PM
Quote from: Vkw10 on August 17, 2020, 04:45:38 PM
I'm beginning to wonder if I missed the contest announcement for "stupidest way to wear a mask." Pushed down, dangling, on top of head, dangling down back, filled with chips? Classes start a week from today.

It's a snack pack!  Now we know what we can use our masks for once the pandemic is over.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on August 17, 2020, 06:08:20 PM
Quote from: Vkw10 on August 17, 2020, 04:45:38 PM
I'm beginning to wonder if I missed the contest announcement for "stupidest way to wear a mask." Pushed down, dangling, on top of head, dangling down back, filled with chips? Classes start a week from today.

I've seen a lot of people who are apparently preventing Covid of the chin.  Must be a new viral strain I was not aware of.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on August 17, 2020, 06:25:25 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on August 15, 2020, 12:04:16 PM
The little darlin's started moving into their dorm rooms yesterday after signing loud and long pledges to all the anti-covid stuff our Prez could think of.

Today, we sent a bunch of them home for a period of quarantine for unauthorized parties/gatherings.

You would think this is the first time our leadership has ever come across the species of Homo undergradicus

I know! The plans at my husband's university include stopping classes 5 minutes early so the students can clean/sanitize their desk and chair. Ok, they do realize that 80% of the students in my husband's department are 18 to 21 y. o. guys (STEM field with no so great M-F ratio) Have these guys ever actually cleaned anything in their entire lives?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Mercudenton on August 23, 2020, 07:55:03 AM
We are returning to campus classes which, although I'm dubious about, I see is necessary if our institution is not to sink. However, I just found out we're also holding community gatherings, starting with convocation, and it is mandatory. Our State is in a better place than some, but official limits are still 50 people for social gatherings (presumably there is an exception for education, otherwise we are breaking the law) Although there will be social distancing and masks, it will be 150+ in a  large hall for convocation. It just seems a bad idea and something that could be dropped or done online. Anyone else navigating this? Are you doing large gatherings on campus? If so, are administration giving opt-outs for faculty?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on August 23, 2020, 01:40:49 PM
I'm sorry the higher-ups are acting like that, Mercudenton. The powers-that-be at my employer have been very good about keeping everything pretty much shut or onine, but then again we don't have dorms and covid is catastrophically bad locally. On a related note, I recently went to campus for red tape reasons, and the place seemed like something out of a postapocalyptic movie.

On a separate note, the apparent death rate has fallen globally, as well as in the US and in other individual countries. Does anyone have any idea why this is? More testing leading to more mild/asymptomatic cases being detected? Hospitals becoming better at keeping people alive? Milder strains of corona becoming dominant?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on August 23, 2020, 07:25:00 PM
Walked into a bar and started to put a mask on. I received a negative reaction from the closely seated bar patrons. It became clear to me that there are those that ignore the Covid 19 threat, choosing to tout that "their haunt and everybody in it does not "cotton" to mask wearing. I wonder if that is being espoused a in  lot of neighborhood "watering holes"?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on August 24, 2020, 12:11:28 AM
Quote from: Economizer on August 23, 2020, 07:25:00 PM
Walked into a bar and started to put a mask on. I received a negative reaction from the closely seated bar patrons. It became clear to me that there are those that ignore the Covid 19 threat, choosing to tout that "their haunt and everybody in it does not "cotton" to mask wearing. I wonder if that is being espoused a in  lot of neighborhood "watering holes"?

Why would you wear a mask in a bar? Unless you're working there, of course.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on August 24, 2020, 01:32:32 AM
OK, you're right. And, I was there on business. But it was just my reaction to the mood there.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on August 24, 2020, 04:49:53 AM
Quote from: Economizer on August 24, 2020, 01:32:32 AM
OK, you're right. And, I was there on business. But it was just my reaction to the mood there.

Business?  Inquiring minds want to know.....
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Bonnie on August 24, 2020, 04:56:12 AM
Quote from: science.expat on August 24, 2020, 12:11:28 AM
Quote from: Economizer on August 23, 2020, 07:25:00 PM
Walked into a bar and started to put a mask on. I received a negative reaction from the closely seated bar patrons. It became clear to me that there are those that ignore the Covid 19 threat, choosing to tout that "their haunt and everybody in it does not "cotton" to mask wearing. I wonder if that is being espoused a in  lot of neighborhood "watering holes"?

Why would you wear a mask in a bar? Unless you're working there, of course.

Wear a mask when you walk in. Wear a mask when you order. Take your mask off to have your drink.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on August 24, 2020, 05:41:27 AM
Quote from: Bonnie on August 24, 2020, 04:56:12 AM
Quote from: science.expat on August 24, 2020, 12:11:28 AM
Quote from: Economizer on August 23, 2020, 07:25:00 PM
Walked into a bar and started to put a mask on. I received a negative reaction from the closely seated bar patrons. It became clear to me that there are those that ignore the Covid 19 threat, choosing to tout that "their haunt and everybody in it does not "cotton" to mask wearing. I wonder if that is being espoused a in  lot of neighborhood "watering holes"?

Why would you wear a mask in a bar? Unless you're working there, of course.

Wear a mask when you walk in. Wear a mask when you order. Take your mask off to have your drink.

No restaurant or bar I've eaten at in the last month (about 4 I guess) has required that patrons wear a mask while ordering, and nobody was doing that. But only one was indoors.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Bonnie on August 24, 2020, 05:52:10 AM
Quote from: downer on August 24, 2020, 05:41:27 AM
Quote from: Bonnie on August 24, 2020, 04:56:12 AM
Quote from: science.expat on August 24, 2020, 12:11:28 AM
Quote from: Economizer on August 23, 2020, 07:25:00 PM
Walked into a bar and started to put a mask on. I received a negative reaction from the closely seated bar patrons. It became clear to me that there are those that ignore the Covid 19 threat, choosing to tout that "their haunt and everybody in it does not "cotton" to mask wearing. I wonder if that is being espoused a in  lot of neighborhood "watering holes"?

Why would you wear a mask in a bar? Unless you're working there, of course.

Wear a mask when you walk in. Wear a mask when you order. Take your mask off to have your drink.

No restaurant or bar I've eaten at in the last month (about 4 I guess) has required that patrons wear a mask while ordering, and nobody was doing that. But only one was indoors.

Quite the opposite here. If you are not at your table, you are expected to have a mask on. That's pretty rigid indoors a bit less so outdoors but more mask wearing than not. When orders are taken at tables, folks tend to keep masks on until after they've placed their orders. Of course, that's at the places I choose to go to. I'm sure some establishments are less strict about the public health orders.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on August 24, 2020, 07:57:20 AM
We finally have all of our staff healthy and back at work!  Our county's current active infection count is way down.

On the other hand, public schools are starting back today....
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: zyzzx on August 24, 2020, 10:39:43 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on August 23, 2020, 01:40:49 PM

On a separate note, the apparent death rate has fallen globally, as well as in the US and in other individual countries. Does anyone have any idea why this is? More testing leading to more mild/asymptomatic cases being detected? Hospitals becoming better at keeping people alive? Milder strains of corona becoming dominant?

Back in the day (spring sometime), there was a pretty clear relationship between apparent death rate and what % of tests were positive (plotted for the top 50 countries or so, excluding the tiny ones), so I would expect that increased testing is part of it. Here they are now testing all contacts of cases, all returning travelers from risk regions, and anyone who wants to pay for it. The country managed really well in the spring, but still was not generally testing asymptomatic contacts or people with no contacts and mild non-specific symptoms (such people were quarantined, but not always tested).
Maybe also related to the young people partying (at least over here in Europe), and the case distribution going younger, but I guess it's hard to say if there are really more young people catching it, or just more young people getting tested.

It's interesting - the numbers in parts of Europe have increased a lot over the past weeks, some back near the spring peak, but the response is much more muted. I hope that this is because the health agencies have a better handle on things (i.e. that the actual cases are still much lower than in the spring and a much larger proportion are getting caught), and not just because of restriction fatigue. I guess we'll find out eventually...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on August 26, 2020, 11:04:36 AM
Just learned that a church member of ours has died of COVID.  He had battled cancer for a number of years, had finally gotten cancer free, and had even been able to return to work.  The last news I'd had of him only a couple of weeks ago was good.

I did not know him very well, and had not seen him since before all this started.  He either hasn't been coming to church since we re-opened, or had been going to the second Sunday morning service.  I don't think he had even been doing that.  His job as a timber surveyor probably didn't involve a great deal of face-to-face contact with others, so I don't think he'll probably have a very wide contact net to trace.

This is the first member of our church family whom I'm aware of who has had COVID.  He's the fourth we've lost since all this started for whom we've been unable to have a proper funeral.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on August 26, 2020, 11:45:17 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on August 23, 2020, 01:40:49 PM
I

On a separate note, the apparent death rate has fallen globally, as well as in the US and in other individual countries. Does anyone have any idea why this is? More testing leading to more mild/asymptomatic cases being detected? Hospitals becoming better at keeping people alive? Milder strains of corona becoming dominant?

A lot of it is more cases being identified. In March/April New York City had a positivity rate of almost 50 percent. Mostly, only really sick people were being tested. If you look at cases per capita, New York is 8th, but clearly the outbreak was worse there and in New Jersey than in any other state. Of course, deaths are a lagging indicator. For a while, case counts were going up here without deaths rising too. Unfortunately, probably the death rate will grow in Spain and other places.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on September 16, 2020, 05:35:19 AM
NBER paper: effect on non-pharmaceutical interventions in reducing Covid-19 transmission is overstated (https://www.nber.org/papers/w27719.pdf).

As often happens, the statistical modeling jargon in this economics paper is too dense for me to understand. Can anyone comment knowledgeably about this? I see the authors making these claims, and I offer possible rebuttals to two of them:

First claim: R(t) fell because of a slowdown in transmission rather than development of herd immunity. Seems intuitively obvious.

Second claim: Transmission rates fell all over the world regardless of what NPIs were implemented in various locations, so NPIs probably weren't the cause of the lower transmission rates. Hmmm. Maybe there are many different types of NPIs that reduce transmission, so it really doesn't matter which ones are used, as long as some are used.

Third claim: after the initial case surge and decline, transmission rates remained low after NPIs were lifted, again suggesting NPIs didn't have an effect on reducing the transmission rate. I guess that depends on who was initially getting infected and why. A contagious disease always kills the weakest members of the herd first. Or people in high-risk environments learned how to lessen the chance of infection in ways that the authors of this article aren't modeling.

The authors seem to be focusing mainly on the rate of change in the growth rate of Covid-19 deaths. Maybe I'm misreading this. But the case fatality rate does not go to zero. SARS-CoV-2 is now part of the ecosystem, and given the CFR data I've seen, Covid-19 is ~ 5 times more deadly than influenza. So an NPI as inexpensive as mask-wearing would seem to make economic sense, even if it has only a small effect on reducing transmission of Covid-19 and other airborne pathogens like influenza.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on September 16, 2020, 05:59:52 AM
The finding is pretty similar to another recent paper that found the lockdowns in the US had basically no effect on people's mobility (as measured using cell phone location data). What they found was that once the first local deaths happened, people stopped going out irrespective of whether there was a lockdown. My own observation matched the flipside of this, too: once restaurants here could open again, they were empty for a couple weeks still. And while gyms are again open, just looking at the availability of some of the group fitness classes I used to go to shows that extremely few people are attending (say 4-5 people down from 20-30). Suggests that people have a pretty good sense of how risky things are and they respond (rationally) to local events, not to those happening across the country.

Edit: adding to that, mask mandates in outdoor spaces probably make very little sense. I've seen people wear masks while they are out hiking, which is just absurd. The rules governing restaurants are not very sensible either: people can take off their masks while eating indoors, but they have to put them on to walk to the bathroom. That's just not how air circulation in an indoor space is going to work: the AC blasting is going to be a much bigger problem. Mask mandates in small, enclosed spaces make a lot of sense -- but people are also starting to avoid those. For example, ridership on public transit is *way* down. When I see busses pass by, they're either completely empty or have 2-3 people in them, when they used to be full.

Then we have data like these on Covid accumulation in cars -- something as simple as cracking open the window has a huge effect, whereas it's not clear to me how masks would prevent concentration in the air: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/22/coronavirus-car-protect-yourself-column/5166146002/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 16, 2020, 06:47:19 AM
Quote from: pigou on September 16, 2020, 05:59:52 AM


Edit: adding to that, mask mandates in outdoor spaces probably make very little sense. I've seen people wear masks while they are out hiking, which is just absurd. The rules governing restaurants are not very sensible either: people can take off their masks while eating indoors, but they have to put them on to walk to the bathroom. That's just not how air circulation in an indoor space is going to work: the AC blasting is going to be a much bigger problem. Mask mandates in small, enclosed spaces make a lot of sense -- but people are also starting to avoid those. For example, ridership on public transit is *way* down. When I see busses pass by, they're either completely empty or have 2-3 people in them, when they used to be full.



I think it makes sense if you're talking about fairly crowded spaces, especially if it is a business district where people might be walking around and then going in to shops. Ditto for college campuses. The actual risk outdoors is probably pretty low, but I think it creates a cultural expectation around mask wearing that translates into the indoor spaces. Completely agree about restaurants and hiking. On one hand there's this tendency to have rules that can give people a false sense of security in places that are just dangerous. On the other hand, you see an obsession with having weirdly strict rules in places that are pretty low risk, like beaches. Honolulu seems to have a rule that nobody is allowed to be outside on beaches, even just walking, in groups of more than one. There's no exception for family units. Why would you want to discourage families from walking on a beach?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on September 16, 2020, 01:01:16 PM
In Hawaii, everyone is Ohana.  You'd have massive crowds.

(That's an exaggeration, but only a little)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on September 18, 2020, 05:10:38 AM
Obesity and Mortality Among Patients Diagnosed With Covid-19 (https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-3742)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: polly_mer on September 19, 2020, 05:57:25 AM
The science media giant Nature puts out a daily briefing on science news that might be of interest to this crowd: https://www.nature.com/nature/articles?type=nature-briefing


Quote from: pigou on September 16, 2020, 05:59:52 AM
Edit: adding to that, mask mandates in outdoor spaces probably make very little sense. I've seen people wear masks while they are out hiking, which is just absurd.

It may be absurd on vacant trails.  However, here, the trails are often packed on a nice day.  On a calm enough day, you can smell clouds of BO, sunscreen, and mosquito repellent as you walk.  You'll pass close by dozens of people walking the other way with more crowds on a nice weekend/holiday than you get walking on our sidewalks downtown on random business days.  Yeah, walking outside is lower risk than eating inside at a restaurant, but that 'probably' in your post isn't a 'definitely'.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on September 19, 2020, 06:08:16 PM
Fellow nerds, rejoice! There is some speculation that wearing glasses is protective against the virus. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/well/live/does-wearing-glasses-protect-you-from-coronavirus.html?searchResultPosition=1)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: aside on September 19, 2020, 06:10:18 PM
Quote from: Treehugger on September 19, 2020, 06:08:16 PM
Fellow nerds, rejoice! There is some speculation that wearing glasses is protective against the virus. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/well/live/does-wearing-glasses-protect-you-from-coronavirus.html?searchResultPosition=1)

So is the social isolation that often accompanies nerdiness.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 19, 2020, 08:21:33 PM
Quote from: Treehugger on September 19, 2020, 06:08:16 PM
Fellow nerds, rejoice! There is some speculation that wearing glasses is protective against the virus. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/well/live/does-wearing-glasses-protect-you-from-coronavirus.html?searchResultPosition=1)

Are you implying that only nerds wear glasses? :O
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on September 19, 2020, 08:36:49 PM
Quote from: spork on September 18, 2020, 05:10:38 AM
Obesity and Mortality Among Patients Diagnosed With Covid-19 (https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-3742)

My wife, the doctor, has been telling me that all along, roughly speaking.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on September 20, 2020, 05:38:38 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 19, 2020, 08:36:49 PM
Quote from: spork on September 18, 2020, 05:10:38 AM
Obesity and Mortality Among Patients Diagnosed With Covid-19 (https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-3742)

My wife, the doctor, has been telling me that all along, roughly speaking.

So have the physicians that I run with.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on September 21, 2020, 06:37:13 PM
Is there anyone here who is still not feeling depressed and/or stressed out and/or very sad about the coronavirus?

I would have put myself in this category up until a week ago, but I have just hit a coronavirus wall. I think it's because I am starting to really and truly feel that normal is not right around the corner (instead of knowing it in a more purely intellectual way). I had no problem accepting temporary losses, but now it looks like some of these losses may be permanent or at least very long term.

On the plus side, at least I'm finding it a lot easier to empathize with others now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on September 21, 2020, 06:56:16 PM
I'm bemused, sometimes.

To think we did all sorts of things in those other ways and now we're doing them in these ways.

Who knew we could live and move forward in so many different dimensions and ways of being?

Who knows what we might find ourselves accommodating at some other time?

But it's the opposite, to me, of a waterworld kind of experience, because things aren't being covered over, they're being excavated for what they hold that can still be borne forth and what not.

Very nebulous and fluid, on the one hand, but not flooded.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on September 21, 2020, 08:57:45 PM
I think it was July when I decided that we would probably never go back to normal, that we'd have go forward until we reached a normal that's not quite the same as it was before. Some days I'm okay with that, testing alternative ways of accomplishing goals and even assessing whether the goals should change. Other days, I find myself overwhelmed with the rate of change. My journal reflects my seesawing emotions, but it also helps me see that my self-care routines are essential because my worst days occur when I've skimped on exercise, breathing exercises, and hobbies. I just wish our new normal would hurry up, because I'm tired of uncertainty.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on September 21, 2020, 09:48:46 PM
Quote from: Treehugger on September 21, 2020, 06:37:13 PM
Is there anyone here who is still not feeling depressed and/or stressed out and/or very sad about the coronavirus?
I'm doing fine, though obviously it's not ideal and I'll be very excited when this is over.

Like everyone in the neighborhood where I live, I now wear a mask anytime I'm outside. During the height of the pandemic earlier this year, I had all my groceries delivered and didn't go anywhere. Now that cases are down, I go grocery shopping and meet up with friends for drinks (outdoor seating only). I go for runs late at night or early in the morning so I don't run into people, and skip the mask for those runs.

Teaching and research meetings are all via Zoom. The former is now running pretty smoothly. There are going to be some technical issues eventually, but students are much more understanding than in other years. Research meetings are actually more productive: those are going to stay on Zoom for the most part. Way easier to schedule a 15 minute call to touch base with coauthors when we would have communicated via Email before, or somehow felt the need to fill an hour until the next meeting, which is just way less productive.

My expenses have crashed dramatically and savings are way up (that's what happens when you stay home more)... I miss traveling the most, so once the virus is under control, I'm looking forward to a lengthy and overpriced vacation to make up for the missed trips.

As for my expectations: I'm still pretty optimistic about a vaccine. So far, all news have been good news (that one adverse reaction was a non-story and doesn't appear to have caused a meaningful delay). Everything looks to be on track for first availability in November, perhaps even end of October with an EUA. Putting some political pressure on the FDA for a quick EUA seems like a net-positive to me: every day we delay is a few hundred additional deaths and this sort of opportunity cost gets surprisingly little weight in normal times. Depending on which candidate(s) work out, we're looking at around 200m doses available by end of the year. I'm not in a vulnerable group, but I'll be in line for it the moment it becomes available to me, assuming the data suggest there's a good chance it's effective -- and given the number of research hospitals in the area, I'd expect it to be relatively early.

Will be far from over in other countries where the worst is probably still to come, but that's a separate problem.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on September 22, 2020, 02:39:08 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on September 21, 2020, 06:37:13 PM
Is there anyone here who is still not feeling depressed and/or stressed out and/or very sad about the coronavirus?

I would have put myself in this category up until a week ago, but I have just hit a coronavirus wall. I think it's because I am starting to really and truly feel that normal is not right around the corner (instead of knowing it in a more purely intellectual way). I had no problem accepting temporary losses, but now it looks like some of these losses may be permanent or at least very long term.

On the plus side, at least I'm finding it a lot easier to empathize with others now.

To borrow from REM's "It's The End Of The World As We Know It," I feel fine. My life is simpler now. Far less driving. Far fewer pointless meetings. I can do yoga at home. I can still run outdoors. Lack of travel is a disappointment, but I can easily cope with that. I'm one of the lucky ones. I don't have to work in a meat-packing plant. My home hasn't burned down. No one is shooting at me.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 22, 2020, 05:06:55 AM
Quote from: Vkw10 on September 21, 2020, 08:57:45 PM
I think it was July when I decided that we would probably never go back to normal, that we'd have go forward until we reached a normal that's not quite the same as it was before. Some days I'm okay with that, testing alternative ways of accomplishing goals and even assessing whether the goals should change. Other days, I find myself overwhelmed with the rate of change. My journal reflects my seesawing emotions, but it also helps me see that my self-care routines are essential because my worst days occur when I've skimped on exercise, breathing exercises, and hobbies. I just wish our new normal would hurry up, because I'm tired of uncertainty.

The problem I have is that I don't think we are going to get to some stable "new normal" anytime soon. This does feel like the new normal. It doesn't feel like daily crisis usually now. Our kid has been in daycare all summer and (knocks wood) thus far, no cases there. Teaching is, for the moment, online (knocks wood) I've sort of got my risk calibrated. There are things I worried about in April, like going through a drive through window, or walking by people at a distance that don't remotely worry me anymore.

But, the problem I have is that I can't really get into the new normal because I don't believe it. I don't think there will be some new period of stability, but I also know this won't last forever. It seems increasingly clear that the end will be like the rest of it; slow, maddening and filled with lots of annoying personal choices with potentially huge consequences.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on September 22, 2020, 05:59:00 AM
On the opposite end of the spectrum from Pigou's optimism, I was dismayed to learn that the powers that be could easily approve a vaccine that's only 30-50% effective. The flu vaccine is effective only 67% of the time, on average, apparently. As I am in several categories that mean if I get COVID-19, it's going to be very bad, 30-50% is not enough to make me sanguine about resuming normal life.  I'm actually doing fine in quarantine, but I'd rather not do this forever. Once we get one vaccine, I imagine the intense pressure to create more versions of it will lessen, and the improvements, if any, will come more slowly. That's depressing.

I also don't see how we have the infrastructure to approve, manufacture, and distribute millions of doses of vaccine in a month or so, or even three months or so. But I guess we'll see.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on September 22, 2020, 07:42:02 AM
Very concerned about our nation and our state, since the virus has become too firmly established to have any hope of eradicating now.

Somewhat concerned about our local community.  Although we've got much bigger long-term concerns than the virus, what with our local economy and culture in such decline.  People here haven't been as hard-headed about not wanting to take precautions as what I've heard described elsewhere.

Not particularly concerned about myself, or my family.  My parents have been taking good care of themselves, and my brother and nieces are all healthy.  I take reasonable precautions to avoid catching or spreading, am healthy enough still to have pretty good odds of not being hit too hard if I get it, and if I should die I know where I'm going.  My routine of work and life is not drastically different from what it was.  And after last year's succession of family and personal injuries and emergencies, this year mostly feels like an improvement.

I just registered for our state's big annual librarians' conference.  It's online of course.  No getting away from familiar surroundings to talk shop face-to-face with colleagues.  It's hard to get excited about a conference that's just going to involve sitting in the office staring at a screen for hours.  I already do enough of that!

It's hard to think that the future in general looks very bright in a world where it looks like much of the Revelation of John is happening right before our eyes.  But if that is indeed what's happening, I at least know how it ends. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Larimar on September 22, 2020, 08:57:16 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 22, 2020, 07:42:02 AM

It's hard to think that the future in general looks very bright in a world where it looks like much of the Revelation of John is happening right before our eyes.  But if that is indeed what's happening, I at least know how it ends. 


So I'm not the only one who has thought this.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on September 22, 2020, 09:30:33 AM
Quote from: Larimar on September 22, 2020, 08:57:16 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 22, 2020, 07:42:02 AM

It's hard to think that the future in general looks very bright in a world where it looks like much of the Revelation of John is happening right before our eyes.  But if that is indeed what's happening, I at least know how it ends. 


So I'm not the only one who has thought this.

Even the non-Evangelicals (moi included) have thought this.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 22, 2020, 10:26:06 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on September 22, 2020, 05:59:00 AM
On the opposite end of the spectrum from Pigou's optimism, I was dismayed to learn that the powers that be could easily approve a vaccine that's only 30-50% effective. The flu vaccine is effective only 67% of the time, on average, apparently. As I am in several categories that mean if I get COVID-19, it's going to be very bad, 30-50% is not enough to make me sanguine about resuming normal life.  I'm actually doing fine in quarantine, but I'd rather not do this forever. Once we get one vaccine, I imagine the intense pressure to create more versions of it will lessen, and the improvements, if any, will come more slowly. That's depressing.

I also don't see how we have the infrastructure to approve, manufacture, and distribute millions of doses of vaccine in a month or so, or even three months or so. But I guess we'll see.

Thats why so many different vaccines are in development. The ones still in early trials have very little chance of being the first ones approved, but it is worth investing in them because they might end up working better in the end. of course ideally one of the early vaccines works pretty well, but its probably going to be a slow process where things improve. Hopefully...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on September 22, 2020, 11:58:06 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on September 22, 2020, 05:59:00 AM
On the opposite end of the spectrum from Pigou's optimism, I was dismayed to learn that the powers that be could easily approve a vaccine that's only 30-50% effective. The flu vaccine is effective only 67% of the time, on average, apparently. As I am in several categories that mean if I get COVID-19, it's going to be very bad, 30-50% is not enough to make me sanguine about resuming normal life.
I recall reading that the expectation for the two leading vaccine candidates is closer to 70%, so I don't think we need to worry about a very ineffective vaccine. But more to the point, the value of the vaccine is not just that it protects you if you get infected, but that you are less likely to get infected in the first place when people around you are vaccinated.

Quote
I also don't see how we have the infrastructure to approve, manufacture, and distribute millions of doses of vaccine in a month or so, or even three months or so. But I guess we'll see.
The leading contenders are already being manufactured in the US, with over 200m doses expected to be delivered before the end of the year. It's really the one thing the Trump administration did right in this pandemic: they put key people from vaccine manufacturers/pharmaceutical companies in charge and let them do their thing.

It's almost surely true that these doses are already stored in secure locations across the country. There's no reason to keep them in a central location and start distribution only once the vaccine has received approval. They can just be stored on military bases and distributed to hospitals and pharmacies over night.

I am, however, predicting a glut of articles about how it'll be predominantly rich and white people who will get vaccinated initially. Basically, same as always.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on September 22, 2020, 01:11:24 PM
Quote from: Treehugger on September 21, 2020, 06:37:13 PM
Is there anyone here who is still not feeling depressed and/or stressed out and/or very sad about the coronavirus? 

On the plus side, at least I'm finding it a lot easier to empathize with others now.

You are a better person than I am.  I fully acknowledge that BLM, climate change, California fires, the death of RBG, the dumpster fire that is the Congress, widespread unemployment, food insecurity, vaccine hesitancy and a hundred other things are fine and worthy priorities on which I should focus my attention.

But I just can't.  Whatever emotional reserves I have are devoted entirely to doing a good job with my students, wondering where the hell my research program has gone, and keeping Mrs Artem safe from the pandemic.  There is only so much "input" my brain can take and I am totally out of bandwidth.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on September 22, 2020, 03:10:00 PM
pigou,

I suspect that the wealthiest people can stay safe in their mountain cabin and wait this all out.  I suspect that the vaccine will go first to front line medical workers and teachers.

Depressed?  No, just tired of it all and I too can now only try to focus on my own safety and keeping up at work.  When I first saw grocery store workers in masks I felt like tearing up.  I just never thought this would happen here at home.  I also feel fortunate to have no loss of income like so many others have experienced.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on September 22, 2020, 06:38:34 PM
Six months in, our current best tool to beat this thing is wearing a mask?  Wasn't that the case for the 1918 flu, over a century ago?  I thought we'd be much farther along by now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on September 22, 2020, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on September 22, 2020, 06:38:34 PM
Six months in, our current best tool to beat this thing is wearing a mask?  Wasn't that the case for the 1918 flu, over a century ago?  I thought we'd be much farther along by now.

Saw a picture of the crowd at a football game in 1918. There were side=by-side, but every one of then was wearing a mask.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on September 22, 2020, 07:21:30 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on September 22, 2020, 01:11:24 PM
Quote from: Treehugger on September 21, 2020, 06:37:13 PM
Is there anyone here who is still not feeling depressed and/or stressed out and/or very sad about the coronavirus? 

On the plus side, at least I'm finding it a lot easier to empathize with others now.

You are a better person than I am.  I fully acknowledge that BLM, climate change, California fires, the death of RBG, the dumpster fire that is the Congress, widespread unemployment, food insecurity, vaccine hesitancy and a hundred other things are fine and worthy priorities on which I should focus my attention.

But I just can't.  Whatever emotional reserves I have are devoted entirely to doing a good job with my students, wondering where the hell my research program has gone, and keeping Mrs Artem safe from the pandemic.  There is only so much "input" my brain can take and I am totally out of bandwidth.

Just wait until you are retired. Then you can have the leisure to deplete your emotional reserves on different problems!

But seriously, I suppose I am mainly sad for me. To a certain extent I've enjoyed (yes, actually enjoyed) the restrictions that came with the response to the pandemic and I didn't mind a break from some of my favorite activities (travel/exotic birding/choral singing & directing) and even some of my friends (shhh....), but now I am wondering if I will be ever able to pick up these activities again. Ever since I was diagnosed with an advanced cancer last year, my oncologists best guesstimate at my life expectancy was 3 to 4 years total and recurrence-free survival at 1 1/2 years  (On the other hand I do have a small, but not negligible chance of being "cured.") So, I don't feel like I have forever to wait. Also, if I have to start treatment again, I will be at even higher risk than I am now, so unless the vaccine is really good, I will probably still have to (reluctantly choose to) restrict my activities and contacts.

I am trying to revive my choir. We are meeting outside with masks and social distancing and people are enjoying it. But we are just singing for fun as we aren't planning on in-person services anytime soon and at the moment the choir isn't enthusiastic about making videos or audio tapes. I suppose it's better than nothing, but I find directing pretty difficult this way. Hard to hear, hard to sing with mask on, rehearsals cancelled or not at the last minute due to weather, wind blowing music away, hard to get people to sing together when they are so far apart physically, losing two really good singers due to pandemic-related financial hardships, etc.

As far as travel goes, I am beginning to wonder if I will ever be able to travel abroad again in my lifetime. We had a trip to Mexico planned for this coming March. Back in March and April of this year, it was almost inconceivable to me that we wouldn't be traveling again an entire year later. But now it seems likely that we will have to give up that trip and other as-of-yet unplanned future trips.


Sigh.

And that's just me. I am also sad about the pandemic's general effects, not to mention the effects of all the other disasters we are facing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on September 22, 2020, 09:03:31 PM
Which pharmaceutical firms would spend huge money to pre-make 200 million doses of an as yet untested and unapproved vax?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on September 22, 2020, 09:44:05 PM
Oh, hell! This might be like the Black Plague: Survivors will be much, much better off [on account of the increase in the capital/labor ratio :-)], and the dead will be , well, dead.

Sorry, reality sucks.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 23, 2020, 04:50:25 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 22, 2020, 09:03:31 PM
Which pharmaceutical firms would spend huge money to pre-make 200 million doses of an as yet untested and unapproved vax?

That's how Warp Speed and similar programs in other countries work. They are being reimbursed for mass producing promising vaccines before they go through all of the trials.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on September 23, 2020, 07:22:01 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on September 22, 2020, 06:38:34 PM
Six months in, our current best tool to beat this thing is wearing a mask?  Wasn't that the case for the 1918 flu, over a century ago?  I thought we'd be much farther along by now.

Well, we are a lot better at coming up with vaccines than we were 100 years ago.  But it still takes time.  In the meantime, masks, cleaning, and social distancing are still the way to prevent transmission, just like then.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on September 23, 2020, 08:24:08 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on September 22, 2020, 06:38:34 PM
Six months in, our current best tool to beat this thing is wearing a mask?  Wasn't that the case for the 1918 flu, over a century ago?  I thought we'd be much farther along by now.
Our best tools are treatments like remdesivir, dexamethasone, and convalescent plasma.

The Spanish flu killed about 3% of the world's population. So we'd need about 235 million deaths to get to that point, or 9 million deaths in the US. We'll not get to that point.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on September 23, 2020, 09:52:58 AM
Quote from: pigou on September 23, 2020, 08:24:08 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on September 22, 2020, 06:38:34 PM
Six months in, our current best tool to beat this thing is wearing a mask?  Wasn't that the case for the 1918 flu, over a century ago?  I thought we'd be much farther along by now.
Our best tools are treatments like remdesivir, dexamethasone, and convalescent plasma.

The Spanish flu killed about 3% of the world's population. So we'd need about 235 million deaths to get to that point, or 9 million deaths in the US. We'll not get to that point.

Best tools for treating infection and best tools for preventing infection are not going to be the same.

"Remember, best defense, no be there." - Mr. Miyagi
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on September 23, 2020, 11:28:11 AM
The wife of Missouri's governor has tested positive (https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-governors-wife-tests-positive-for-covid-19-governor-postpones-travel/article_41f02713-3067-5199-9358-a48af21af2f6.html).  He's a strong defender of Trump's "this is no big deal" approach.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on September 23, 2020, 12:47:17 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 22, 2020, 09:44:05 PM
Oh, hell! This might be like the Black Plague: Survivors will be much, much better off [on account of the increase in the capital/labor ratio :-)], and the dead will be , well, dead.

Sorry, reality sucks.

This is already happening with workers in grocery stores and fast food.  They are getting the best raises I have seen in my lifetime.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on September 23, 2020, 05:58:52 PM
Quote from: AmLitHist on September 23, 2020, 11:28:11 AM
The wife of Missouri's governor has tested positive (https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-governors-wife-tests-positive-for-covid-19-governor-postpones-travel/article_41f02713-3067-5199-9358-a48af21af2f6.html).  He's a strong defender of Trump's "this is no big deal" approach.

The governor himself also tested positive, but has no symptoms.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on September 23, 2020, 10:46:32 PM
Quote from: Anselm on September 23, 2020, 12:47:17 PM
This is already happening with workers in grocery stores and fast food.  They are getting the best raises I have seen in my lifetime.

I tried to hire someone on TaskRabbit to clean my apartment and the lowest price I could find was $75/hr. I mean, more power to the workers who can command a large premium... but I'm kind of surprised that there aren't more people jumping at that wage given that the job requires no qualifications. Not only is the risk of infection fairly minimal, it'd be easy to all but eliminate it by handing them the key and waiting in a restaurant across the street.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on September 24, 2020, 04:59:12 AM
Quote from: pigou on September 23, 2020, 10:46:32 PM
Quote from: Anselm on September 23, 2020, 12:47:17 PM
This is already happening with workers in grocery stores and fast food.  They are getting the best raises I have seen in my lifetime.

I tried to hire someone on TaskRabbit to clean my apartment and the lowest price I could find was $75/hr. I mean, more power to the workers who can command a large premium... but I'm kind of surprised that there aren't more people jumping at that wage given that the job requires no qualifications. Not only is the risk of infection fairly minimal, it'd be easy to all but eliminate it by handing them the key and waiting in a restaurant across the street.

Maybe people who need the money haven't heard about Taskrabbit. Maybe they don't have an internet connection. Maybe they don't have transportation. Maybe they aren't well enough to engage in heavy cleaning. Maybe they are depressed. Maybe they simply lack resourcefulness. Maybe they think cleaning houses is demeaning. Maybe they are not yet desperate enough and are trying to find a job they can put on their resume. Maybe in spite of the relatively low risk they are still afraid of infection. Or maybe they just know they suck at cleaning <raises hand>.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Treehugger on September 24, 2020, 05:00:04 AM
.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on September 24, 2020, 05:00:52 AM
I think Taskrabbit is the wrong place to find housecleaners. I'd ask for names on Nextdoor, and/or among your local friends. I suspect the problem is not that Taskrabbiters want a higher wage for cleaning, but that they're not going to be taking cleaning jobs at all.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on September 24, 2020, 05:18:08 AM
I never used Taskrabbit -- the people I heard use it were those in their 20s, in cities.
I agree that Nextdoor could be a good place to look. There's also Craigslist.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on September 24, 2020, 05:59:44 AM
Quote from: pigou on September 23, 2020, 10:46:32 PM
Quote from: Anselm on September 23, 2020, 12:47:17 PM
This is already happening with workers in grocery stores and fast food.  They are getting the best raises I have seen in my lifetime.

I tried to hire someone on TaskRabbit to clean my apartment and the lowest price I could find was $75/hr. I mean, more power to the workers who can command a large premium... but I'm kind of surprised that there aren't more people jumping at that wage given that the job requires no qualifications. Not only is the risk of infection fairly minimal, it'd be easy to all but eliminate it by handing them the key and waiting in a restaurant across the street.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on September 24, 2020, 07:16:32 AM
Quote from: Anselm on September 24, 2020, 05:59:44 AM
Quote from: pigou on September 23, 2020, 10:46:32 PM
Quote from: Anselm on September 23, 2020, 12:47:17 PM
This is already happening with workers in grocery stores and fast food.  They are getting the best raises I have seen in my lifetime.

I tried to hire someone on TaskRabbit to clean my apartment and the lowest price I could find was $75/hr. I mean, more power to the workers who can command a large premium... but I'm kind of surprised that there aren't more people jumping at that wage given that the job requires no qualifications. Not only is the risk of infection fairly minimal, it'd be easy to all but eliminate it by handing them the key and waiting in a restaurant across the street.

Sorry, I clicked Post before finishing...

If I drop off the radar here it will because I went into the lucrative cleaning business.

I wonder if these high priced cleaners are with big companies that have to pay normal business expenses?   Twenty years ago my family members were charging $20 per hour in a large urban location.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 24, 2020, 08:14:22 AM
Quote from: pigou on September 23, 2020, 10:46:32 PM
Quote from: Anselm on September 23, 2020, 12:47:17 PM
This is already happening with workers in grocery stores and fast food.  They are getting the best raises I have seen in my lifetime.

I tried to hire someone on TaskRabbit to clean my apartment and the lowest price I could find was $75/hr. I mean, more power to the workers who can command a large premium... but I'm kind of surprised that there aren't more people jumping at that wage given that the job requires no qualifications. Not only is the risk of infection fairly minimal, it'd be easy to all but eliminate it by handing them the key and waiting in a restaurant across the street.

We don't pay the person who cleans our house by the hour, but is it 90 bucks and she's usually done in less than 70-80 minutes.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on September 24, 2020, 12:01:23 PM
Around here the standard rate for housecleaners is $20 an hour, $25 an hour for the expensive ones.  We are in a Medium-to-High Cost of Living region.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on September 24, 2020, 06:39:32 PM
Quote from: pigou on September 23, 2020, 10:46:32 PM
Quote from: Anselm on September 23, 2020, 12:47:17 PM
This is already happening with workers in grocery stores and fast food.  They are getting the best raises I have seen in my lifetime.

I tried to hire someone on TaskRabbit to clean my apartment and the lowest price I could find was $75/hr. I mean, more power to the workers who can command a large premium... but I'm kind of surprised that there aren't more people jumping at that wage given that the job requires no qualifications. Not only is the risk of infection fairly minimal, it'd be easy to all but eliminate it by handing them the key and waiting in a restaurant across the street.
I know two ways to recruit house cleaner at reasonable rates. First, ask custodian at university if they know a good person who takes on house cleaning jobs in your area of town. Wait a couple of days and there's a good chance they'll give you the name and number of someone they know, if they don't want the job themselves. Second, find a 55+ apartment complex in your area and ask the manager if he knows who the residents hire for light housekeeping.

Here in Texas, our cleaner charges $30 an hour, minimum $90 a visit. Alternatively, you can agree on a weekly task list for a set amount on a set day, which is what we do. For $40 a week, she cleans two bathrooms and kitchen, sweeps and dusts 2-bedroom apartment, washes towels and bed linen, and makes beds every Friday. If I cancel on less than a week's notice, I owe her half. When we agreed on task list and price, she told me it would take less than two hours since we don't have pets, avoid clutter, and agreed to stay out of apartment on Friday mornings.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on September 24, 2020, 07:04:43 PM
Quote from: Vkw10 on September 24, 2020, 06:39:32 PM
Quote from: pigou on September 23, 2020, 10:46:32 PM
Quote from: Anselm on September 23, 2020, 12:47:17 PM
This is already happening with workers in grocery stores and fast food.  They are getting the best raises I have seen in my lifetime.

I tried to hire someone on TaskRabbit to clean my apartment and the lowest price I could find was $75/hr. I mean, more power to the workers who can command a large premium... but I'm kind of surprised that there aren't more people jumping at that wage given that the job requires no qualifications. Not only is the risk of infection fairly minimal, it'd be easy to all but eliminate it by handing them the key and waiting in a restaurant across the street.
I know two ways to recruit house cleaner at reasonable rates. First, ask custodian at university if they know a good person who takes on house cleaning jobs in your area of town. Wait a couple of days and there's a good chance they'll give you the name and number of someone they know, if they don't want the job themselves. Second, find a 55+ apartment complex in your area and ask the manager if he knows who the residents hire for light housekeeping.

Here in Texas, our cleaner charges $30 an hour, minimum $90 a visit. Alternatively, you can agree on a weekly task list for a set amount on a set day, which is what we do. For $40 a week, she cleans two bathrooms and kitchen, sweeps and dusts 2-bedroom apartment, washes towels and bed linen, and makes beds every Friday. If I cancel on less than a week's notice, I owe her half. When we agreed on task list and price, she told me it would take less than two hours since we don't have pets, avoid clutter, and agreed to stay out of apartment on Friday mornings.

Roughly speaking, this is the same price as in Northern Virginia. Law of One Price Holds -- Market is working! :-)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on September 24, 2020, 07:27:19 PM
If it takes her less than 2 hours, at $30/hr, why do you pay her that $90 minimum?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on September 24, 2020, 08:18:37 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 24, 2020, 07:27:19 PM
If it takes her less than 2 hours, at $30/hr, why do you pay her that $90 minimum?

I don't. The $90 minimum is only for people who go with the hourly charge. I do the alternative, pay-by-the-job, for a regular weekly cleaning. My weekly cleaning is $40 and covers specific tasks which we agreed in advance.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on September 25, 2020, 05:46:53 AM
Why are we bitching about paying decent money for someone, probably a woman, to do a job we don't want to do?  Are you willing to pay a man more to mow your grass than a woman to clean your house?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on September 25, 2020, 06:16:51 AM
I'd like to bitch about both. But it is an interesting comparison. I was playing my lawn guy $75 for about an hour's work.

The lawn guy does supply his own machines. Cleaners generally insist that you supply all the cleaning materials.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 25, 2020, 08:55:39 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 25, 2020, 05:46:53 AM
Why are we bitching about paying decent money for someone, probably a woman, to do a job we don't want to do?  Are you willing to pay a man more to mow your grass than a woman to clean your house?

That's sort of my feeling. Probably we could find somebody who charged less, but we can afford it. I buy enough stupid packages on Amazon supporting systems that pay people too little to work in crummy conditions.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on September 25, 2020, 10:34:34 AM
$30/hr is probably about three times what FL's minimum is.  I do not think it excessive, but I cannot abide customer A having to pay for time not used, such that when cleaner goes to customer B, and charges for work there, she'll be being paid twice for the same work time.  Who gets to do this?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on September 25, 2020, 11:01:22 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 25, 2020, 10:34:34 AM
$30/hr is probably about three times what FL's minimum is.  I do not think it excessive, but I cannot abide customer A having to pay for time not used, such that when cleaner goes to customer B, and charges for work there, she'll be being paid twice for the same work time.  Who gets to do this?

Someone being paid a high premium has probably established a reputation for high quality and reliability. It would be stupid for someone in that situation to cut corners and lose a well-paying gig.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on September 25, 2020, 11:39:35 AM
I know that rates here are $20-25 an hour because that's what my cleaning person charges. She says she charges $20 an hour because other people charge $25 and she wants to get those jobs rather than the other people, because she needs the money badly and is raising a child on her own. But I decided to pay her $30 an hour because, as I tell her, when she starts cutting back on clients, I want to be the one she cuts back on last. She is only the second cleaner I've had, out of about ten over 30 years, who is the full combination of good, reliable, and honest. This is worth more than gold, in my book. Oh the stories I could tell, about the cleaner who stole a table (when I asked her about the table, she said, "Oh, did you like that table?"; the one who brought her husband along supposedly to help clean, but he watched TV instead; the one who stole the contents of my medicine cabinet in the hopes, I guess, that at least one of those things was illicit; the one who stole an entire rosebush, leaving a forlorn hole in the ground .... etc.)

I had my current wonderful cleaner come every second week until this past March, when I had her stop coming altogether for pandemic reasons, but continued to pay her. In June she asked to come back, because she said most people had discontinued her services altogether because of the pandemic. So I raised her rate to coming every week, and continued to pay her for not coming. She tried to refuse the check, but I told her that when she saw the state of my house, after all this, she would realize that I am underpaying her. I can certainly afford it, and I know her well enough to know she's having a hard time.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on September 25, 2020, 12:07:29 PM
This whole conversation is fascinating for how it gives perspective to the debate about minimum wage. Simple rule so far:

Where quality matters, the minimum wage is mostly irrelevant.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on September 25, 2020, 01:24:51 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 25, 2020, 12:07:29 PM

Where quality matters, the minimum wage is mostly irrelevant.

That is true. However, the whole "dirty" jobs premise of Mike Rowe is that if the job is necessary, but few people are willing to do it, the same concept can apply.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on September 25, 2020, 01:39:44 PM
QuoteWhere quality matters, the minimum wage is mostly irrelevant.

Well, no and yes. To ensure quality, one can engage in monitoring. [I stand behind my cleaning person's back, the whole time.] This can often get expensive! Another way of accomplishing quality assurance is to overpay the worker. That way, the worker loses a lot if a spotcheck reveals s/he did a lousy job and gets fired. This is a version of efficiency wages.

Now, if the minimum wage is below the efficiency wage, it doesn't bind and doesn't matter. However, if the minimum wage is above the efficiency wage, employment falls.

Quote
QuoteHowever, the whole "dirty" jobs premise of Mike Rowe is that if the job is necessary, but few people are willing to do it, ... .

then the wage will be higher than for clean jobs. Again, the minimum wage maybe low enough and not bind or high enough that too few are allowed to do the dirty jobs.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on September 30, 2020, 03:39:39 PM
So, just heard this on my tv: "at the University of Notre Dame where a dozen and a half football players tested positive". Too me a moment to figure out what they meant. Not sure why you wouldn't say 18, but I was really hoping for 12.5 players.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on September 30, 2020, 04:55:07 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 30, 2020, 03:39:39 PM
So, just heard this on my tv: "at the University of Notre Dame where a dozen and a half football players tested positive". Too me a moment to figure out what they meant. Not sure why you wouldn't say 18, but I was really hoping for 12.5 players.

Maybe just one nostril?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: PhilRunner on October 05, 2020, 10:12:56 AM
A student death and an example of a school not doing enough. Things are getting tough for folks in the mountains of NC:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/us/covid-college-death-chad-dorrill.html

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on October 05, 2020, 10:51:49 AM
Google's US case count (https://www.google.com/search?q=us+coronavirus+cases&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA838CA838&oq=us+coronavirus+cases&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l7.3034j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) is now showing two giant spikes in July: 141 317 on July 20, and 138 203 on July 27. They weren't there yesterday, and I certainly don't remember them ever being announced. Around that time, we were talking about single-day records of ~77k.

What happened? I swear, those two spikes weren't there yesterday, when I looked.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on October 06, 2020, 04:36:07 AM
Quote from: PhilRunner on October 05, 2020, 10:12:56 AM
A student death and an example of a school not doing enough. Things are getting tough for folks in the mountains of NC:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/us/covid-college-death-chad-dorrill.html

Things are indeed tough here in the Appalachian Mountains.  In my poor, rural county:  at least 24 cases in 5 days, with new cases in the schools and eateries.  Too many not following coronovirus protocols, a situation which will worsen with the magnificent return of the cult leader to his lair.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on October 06, 2020, 07:37:13 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 05, 2020, 10:51:49 AM
Google's US case count (https://www.google.com/search?q=us+coronavirus+cases&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA838CA838&oq=us+coronavirus+cases&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l7.3034j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) is now showing two giant spikes in July: 141 317 on July 20, and 138 203 on July 27. They weren't there yesterday, and I certainly don't remember them ever being announced. Around that time, we were talking about single-day records of ~77k.

What happened? I swear, those two spikes weren't there yesterday, when I looked.

Hmm, gone again. Musta been a glitch.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 06, 2020, 09:14:38 AM
From CNN:

More people have died from Covid-19 than in the past 5 flu seasons combined

Earlier this morning, President Trump falsely claimed in a tweet that coronavirus is "in most populations far less lethal" than the flu.

More people in the United States have died already from coronavirus than those who died from influenza during the past five flu seasons combined.

Here's a look at the numbers: The first person known to have died from coronavirus in the United States died on Feb. 29, according to Johns Hopkins University. Seven months later, more than 210,000 Americans are dead. Remember, the "typical" flu season runs about 7 months, from October to April.

According to CDC estimates, this is how many Americans have died from the flu in recent seasons:

2019-2020: 22,000 (preliminary)
2018-2019: 34,000 (preliminary)
2017-2018: 61,000 (preliminary)
2016-2017: 38,000
2015-2016: 23,000
2014-2015: 51,000
2013-2014: 38,000
2012-2013: 43,000
2011-2012: 12,000
2010-2011: 37,000
About 178,000 people died in the five flu seasons running from 2015 until 2020, while more than 210,000 people died of coronavirus this year.


Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on October 06, 2020, 12:34:25 PM
Attila stopping coronovirus relief negotiations until after the election.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on October 06, 2020, 12:50:30 PM
A student asked to reschedule an online exam (scheduled for a few hours in the future) and adds that he has COVID. 
HAD he said, "Ive been throwing up all night",   I would have sent him a 'feel better soon' message and noted that the syllabus does not allow for rescheduling exams, but the final will replace the missed exam" and been done with it.

However, he said "COVID".  That triggers other things.  I had to look up what I am supposed to do.  I understand the policy that I should offer a make up, rather than replace the grade with the final because we dont want to do anything that would entice the infected to engage (even if the exam is online).  I have to submit a university 'qualtrix survey' indicating that the student said the magic word.  I then emailed the student the 'student back to school' guide, noting page 4 outlines that the student must submit another form, and the student's doctor should submit yet another form. (Which means that I had to find, then read/skim the document myself first) I clicked on the link for additional information, and asked what I was required to do.

I got an email reply from academic affairs indicating that I should submit the questionnaire (to report others), send the student the first person question link, and that I could require proof from the student to reschedule the exam.  The student had already offered a doctors note (which I would not have otherwise requested), but as the student offered and AA said I could/should request documentation, I said ok.

I had CCd my chair and from that point, the student replied to all, so she was getting all of the messages. My initial reply to the student included the 'back to school' guide.   I failed to mention earlier that I found the page 4 information, copied it, (then opened the links that did not copy and inserted the internet pages to link to).   So this had already eaten nearly 2 hours of my morning and then I got a call (not an email)  from my chair saying that she had called the deans office, and was told that I was NOT to ask for documentation as it is a privacy issue.  I told her that I was complying with the email from AA!   She asked and I promptly forwarded the AA email.

All of this because a student typed the magic word "COVID".  I really dont want to hear about "COVID" anymore!!  I am tempted to email all of my class es that IF they are unable to complete an exam because they are ill, that the final replace the missed exam, and that they should simply say they are 'not feeling up to taking the test today' and that will save me another 2 hours of my life!!!

(That assumes that the event is now closed and that the dean does not try to make a thing out of this!  To which I will reply, "Why dont you admincritters get together and decide, once and for all, what the actual plan IS so that we can all follow the 'real' plan!) 

So this is my Covid Vent of the day (I hope it is complete)

How does my experience and university plan compare to yours?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on October 06, 2020, 03:13:02 PM
Quote from: clean on October 06, 2020, 12:50:30 PM
A student asked to reschedule an online exam (scheduled for a few hours in the future) and adds that he has COVID. 
HAD he said, "Ive been throwing up all night",   I would have sent him a 'feel better soon' message and noted that the syllabus does not allow for rescheduling exams, but the final will replace the missed exam" and been done with it.

However, he said "COVID".  That triggers other things.  I had to look up what I am supposed to do.  I understand the policy that I should offer a make up, rather than replace the grade with the final because we dont want to do anything that would entice the infected to engage (even if the exam is online).  I have to submit a university 'qualtrix survey' indicating that the student said the magic word.  I then emailed the student the 'student back to school' guide, noting page 4 outlines that the student must submit another form, and the student's doctor should submit yet another form. (Which means that I had to find, then read/skim the document myself first) I clicked on the link for additional information, and asked what I was required to do.

I got an email reply from academic affairs indicating that I should submit the questionnaire (to report others), send the student the first person question link, and that I could require proof from the student to reschedule the exam.  The student had already offered a doctors note (which I would not have otherwise requested), but as the student offered and AA said I could/should request documentation, I said ok.

I had CCd my chair and from that point, the student replied to all, so she was getting all of the messages. My initial reply to the student included the 'back to school' guide.   I failed to mention earlier that I found the page 4 information, copied it, (then opened the links that did not copy and inserted the internet pages to link to).   So this had already eaten nearly 2 hours of my morning and then I got a call (not an email)  from my chair saying that she had called the deans office, and was told that I was NOT to ask for documentation as it is a privacy issue.  I told her that I was complying with the email from AA!   She asked and I promptly forwarded the AA email.

All of this because a student typed the magic word "COVID".  I really dont want to hear about "COVID" anymore!!  I am tempted to email all of my class es that IF they are unable to complete an exam because they are ill, that the final replace the missed exam, and that they should simply say they are 'not feeling up to taking the test today' and that will save me another 2 hours of my life!!!

(That assumes that the event is now closed and that the dean does not try to make a thing out of this!  To which I will reply, "Why dont you admincritters get together and decide, once and for all, what the actual plan IS so that we can all follow the 'real' plan!) 

So this is my Covid Vent of the day (I hope it is complete)

How does my experience and university plan compare to yours?
Plan? We have no plan. 
My university is working under the assumption that switching to online learning is a way to dodge the issue.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on October 06, 2020, 06:08:01 PM
Quote from: clean on October 06, 2020, 12:50:30 PM
A student asked to reschedule an online exam (scheduled for a few hours in the future) and adds that he has COVID. 
HAD he said, "Ive been throwing up all night",   I would have sent him a 'feel better soon' message and noted that the syllabus does not allow for rescheduling exams, but the final will replace the missed exam" and been done with it.

However, he said "COVID".  That triggers other things.  I had to look up what I am supposed to do.  I understand the policy that I should offer a make up, rather than replace the grade with the final because we dont want to do anything that would entice the infected to engage (even if the exam is online).  I have to submit a university 'qualtrix survey' indicating that the student said the magic word.  I then emailed the student the 'student back to school' guide, noting page 4 outlines that the student must submit another form, and the student's doctor should submit yet another form. (Which means that I had to find, then read/skim the document myself first) I clicked on the link for additional information, and asked what I was required to do.

I got an email reply from academic affairs indicating that I should submit the questionnaire (to report others), send the student the first person question link, and that I could require proof from the student to reschedule the exam.  The student had already offered a doctors note (which I would not have otherwise requested), but as the student offered and AA said I could/should request documentation, I said ok.

I had CCd my chair and from that point, the student replied to all, so she was getting all of the messages. My initial reply to the student included the 'back to school' guide.   I failed to mention earlier that I found the page 4 information, copied it, (then opened the links that did not copy and inserted the internet pages to link to).   So this had already eaten nearly 2 hours of my morning and then I got a call (not an email)  from my chair saying that she had called the deans office, and was told that I was NOT to ask for documentation as it is a privacy issue.  I told her that I was complying with the email from AA!   She asked and I promptly forwarded the AA email.

All of this because a student typed the magic word "COVID".  I really dont want to hear about "COVID" anymore!!  I am tempted to email all of my class es that IF they are unable to complete an exam because they are ill, that the final replace the missed exam, and that they should simply say they are 'not feeling up to taking the test today' and that will save me another 2 hours of my life!!!

(That assumes that the event is now closed and that the dean does not try to make a thing out of this!  To which I will reply, "Why dont you admincritters get together and decide, once and for all, what the actual plan IS so that we can all follow the 'real' plan!) 

So this is my Covid Vent of the day (I hope it is complete)

How does my experience and university plan compare to yours?

I haven't had a student get Covid to my knowledge, but we don't have to do anything like this. Students whether they are on or off campus are required to fill out a form every day asking about symptoms and whether they've been exposed or tested positive. If any of our students are quarantined or positive, I think we would get notified through the dean's office. I don't really understand why

I usually do something similar with make up exams but this semester I've been letting students take the exam late if they tell me in advance.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on October 06, 2020, 07:06:38 PM
Quote from: clean on October 06, 2020, 12:50:30 PM

All of this because a student typed the magic word "COVID".  I really dont want to hear about "COVID" anymore!!  I am tempted to email all of my class es that IF they are unable to complete an exam because they are ill, that the final replace the missed exam, and that they should simply say they are 'not feeling up to taking the test today' and that will save me another 2 hours of my life!!!

So this is my Covid Vent of the day (I hope it is complete)

How does my experience and university plan compare to yours?

I'm not happy with many of the plans my university made and is still making, but they did a good job on this one. We are to strongly encourage students to use the CuteName Form, available in university app and university homepage, to self-report COVID-19 symptoms and positive tests. That triggers follow up, which includes test appointments, contact tracing, quarantine instructions, notices to faculty about make up work, etc. We are specifically told not to report it, just remind student to use CuteName Form.

For employees, we have CuteNameForm for self reporting and CuteNameSupervisorForm for supervisor report. I have to report and tell them they can't work until we both get clearance email from HR.

I still get a ton of form emails, with instructions, but at least everyone knows what to do. Most students are using CuteNameForm instead of contacting faculty directly.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 08, 2020, 07:20:36 PM
One of the students I told me that hu's prof put two cohort groups together in the lab and did not observe social distancing (had multiple students at a lab table) during an exam. I urged the student to contact the Department Chair. I know who the instructor is, but I don't think it's my place to say anything- or should I? What would you do?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: VaticanCameos on October 09, 2020, 06:54:53 AM
In a normal semester, I wouldn't contact the chair, but this is not a normal semester.  If this colleague isn't following social distancing protocols in one class, it is likely that they aren't following it in others.  On my campus, we've seen zero transmission from student to student in socially distanced classrooms and labs, but there has been student to student spread in non-distanced spaces, though some of those were not academic spaces.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on October 09, 2020, 09:10:38 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 08, 2020, 07:20:36 PM
One of the students I told me that hu's prof put two cohort groups together in the lab and did not observe social distancing (had multiple students at a lab table) during an exam. I urged the student to contact the Department Chair. I know who the instructor is, but I don't think it's my place to say anything- or should I? What would you do?

Since you didn't see it personally, I'd encourage the students to speak up.  Are the lab tables large enough that the students could possibly be 6 feet apart from each other?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on October 09, 2020, 09:15:11 AM
Yes, shifting the discussion to an object (like tables, and their size and positioning) is going to seem less like harassment or a directed attack on a colleague than talking about a particular person in a specific class.

It may then need to come to that, i.e., describing what you saw as an example, in which case you can say it in a more offhand way, so you don't come across as targeting that person.

The politics of spacing.

M. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 09, 2020, 09:45:44 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on October 09, 2020, 09:10:38 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 08, 2020, 07:20:36 PM
One of the students I told me that hu's prof put two cohort groups together in the lab and did not observe social distancing (had multiple students at a lab table) during an exam. I urged the student to contact the Department Chair. I know who the instructor is, but I don't think it's my place to say anything- or should I? What would you do?

Since you didn't see it personally, I'd encourage the students to speak up.  Are the lab tables large enough that the students could possibly be 6 feet apart from each other?

No, they are not.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on October 09, 2020, 10:16:50 AM
I can tell that one of our staff members has been getting worried about the virus again.  This morning she decided that our box for collecting returned library items for quarantine was too close to the Circulation desk for comfort and moved it several feet away.  Books don't breathe or cough.  Any microbes on them will be there until they die.  Moving the "book jail" won't do anything at all to reduce risks.

I didn't say anything to her.  If it makes her feel better, she can move the quarantine box those few feet.

When she's in one of these moods I can expect to hear more about the endless errors and transgressions of a junior staff member who works in the afternoons.  I hope his afternoon isn't made too uncomfortable.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on October 12, 2020, 03:10:26 PM
We are being told we have to physically tape off locations in any research labs to indicate physical distancing spaces.  As in, "If Person A is using equipment in this location, Person B can't be any closer than this line."  We are supposed to space out shared equipment too.  We can't put the microwave, freezer, autoclave, incubator, gel tanks, balances, etc. all at least 6 feet apart.  We don't have that much space!  I think a lot of labs are going to look like colorful rainbows of tape (microwave use region is in blue, it overlaps with the freezer use region shown in green, which is next to the sink that is yellow, etc).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 14, 2020, 09:04:37 AM
Higher death rate in US than other high per capita income countries: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/10/13/923253681/americans-are-dying-in-the-pandemic-at-rates-far-higher-than-in-other-countries
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Thursday's_Child on October 14, 2020, 09:11:06 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 14, 2020, 09:04:37 AM
Higher death rate in US than other high per capita income countries: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/10/13/923253681/americans-are-dying-in-the-pandemic-at-rates-far-higher-than-in-other-countries

My hypothesis:  due to a combination of the ugly realities of our healthcare system and the probability of comorbidities that can result from some combination of healthcare deficiencies, "Western" diet, & excessively sedentary life style.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on October 14, 2020, 09:17:21 AM
It could also be 'measurement issues'.  Here, you can die 'with' covid (rather than directly because of covid) and still count as it being THE cause of death.  IF the other countries are using a stricter definition, their numbers would be lower.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on October 14, 2020, 09:22:59 AM
Given the quote below, that hypothesis seems unwarranted.

"A new report in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds that over the last 5 months per capita deaths in the U.S., both from COVID-19 and other causes have been far greater than in 18 other high-income countries."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Thursday's_Child on October 14, 2020, 09:30:25 AM
Quote from: clean on October 14, 2020, 09:17:21 AM
It could also be 'measurement issues'.  Here, you can die 'with' covid (rather than directly because of covid) and still count as it being THE cause of death.  IF the other countries are using a stricter definition, their numbers would be lower.

That's true - there are different ways to attribute cause.  As one internet commentator put it:  "if I'm attacked by a bear and the injuries aggravate my diabetes to the point that the ER docs can't control it and I die of blood sugar issues, I still died of the bear attack".
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Thursday's_Child on October 14, 2020, 09:34:12 AM
Quote from: FishProf on October 14, 2020, 09:22:59 AM
Given the quote below, that hypothesis seems unwarranted.

"A new report in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds that over the last 5 months per capita deaths in the U.S., both from COVID-19 and other causes have been far greater than in 18 other high-income countries."

Why do you consider the hypothesis unwarranted?  What possible factors, other than those I listed, would account for the U.S. having higher death rates than other countries with similar incomes?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on October 14, 2020, 09:53:54 AM
Quote from: Thursday's_Child on October 14, 2020, 09:34:12 AM
Why do you consider the hypothesis unwarranted?  What possible factors, other than those I listed, would account for the U.S. having higher death rates than other countries with similar incomes?

My response was to Clean's hypothesis, not yours. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Thursday's_Child on October 14, 2020, 09:56:13 AM
Quote from: FishProf on October 14, 2020, 09:53:54 AM
Quote from: Thursday's_Child on October 14, 2020, 09:34:12 AM
Why do you consider the hypothesis unwarranted?  What possible factors, other than those I listed, would account for the U.S. having higher death rates than other countries with similar incomes?

My response was to Clean's hypothesis, not yours.

Oh!  That's a relief, because I was seriously wondering what I'd missed!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: onthefringe on October 14, 2020, 09:58:54 AM
Quote from: clean on October 14, 2020, 09:17:21 AM
It could also be 'measurement issues'.  Here, you can die 'with' covid (rather than directly because of covid) and still count as it being THE cause of death.  IF the other countries are using a stricter definition, their numbers would be lower.

In addition to what fishprof mentions, it's not like people who happen to have covid are getting shot or hit by a bus and counted in the covid death counts. Death certificates have space for immediate and underlying causes. Yes, over 90% of people with covid listed as the primary source of death also have additional causes listed. In many of those cases, the additional cause (ie respiratory failure) was itself caused by the covid infection. In others, the additional causes are comorbidities known to exacerbate the dangers of covid. If someone has diabetes, catches covid, and dies, the diabetes may be listed as an additional factor. But the fact remains they died at that time because they caught covid, not because of the underlying condition that makes covid more dangerous. They might have continued to live with diabetes for decades. They died of covid, not "with" covid.

I think in some ways, the focus on comorbidities can be a way to reduce our own fear. If I can say, well, I'm young(ish) and healthy(ish), normal weight, low blood pressure, so if I get Covid, I might have a better outcome — it makes me less scared. But, it doesn't change the fact that over 200,000 people in the US are dead today who would likely still be alive if they had not caught covid.


Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on October 14, 2020, 10:32:57 AM
With all of the different countries, with different administrations, and different agendas, is the consensus that all of these political units have uniform processes for identifying cause of death related to Covid19?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 14, 2020, 10:43:44 AM
Quote from: clean on October 14, 2020, 10:32:57 AM
With all of the different countries, with different administrations, and different agendas, is the consensus that all of these political units have uniform processes for identifying cause of death related to Covid19?

Close enough for me. It is essentially Western Europe plus South Korea, Japan, Australia and Israel.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on October 14, 2020, 11:05:03 AM
The article isn't just about Covid.

I expect the WHO has some standards they use.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on October 14, 2020, 11:14:45 AM
I just seem to recall that the Great Pumpkin was complaining that the demo (crat or nic) governors were exaggerating the death rate.  I also know that in the summer my local health department upped the number of deaths by over 1000 because the state had reclassified some of the deaths.

Im just saying, that IF the standards are different, then the comparisons of the numbers IS questionable between the different jurisdictions (apples and oranges, or oranges and grape fruit - both citrus, but one is NOT for breakfast  --- and for the record, I hate grape fruit!!)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 14, 2020, 11:33:16 AM
Quote from: clean on October 14, 2020, 11:14:45 AM
I just seem to recall that the Great Pumpkin was complaining that the demo (crat or nic) governors were exaggerating the death rate.  I also know that in the summer my local health department upped the number of deaths by over 1000 because the state had reclassified some of the deaths.

Im just saying, that IF the standards are different, then the comparisons of the numbers IS questionable between the different jurisdictions (apples and oranges, or oranges and grape fruit - both citrus, but one is NOT for breakfast  --- and for the record, I hate grape fruit!!)

I'm pretty sure the standard for death isn't different.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on October 15, 2020, 05:26:50 PM
For cases per million, the US of A looks third worldish. Wouldn't worry too much about cases, though, on account the rate of testing co-determines that.

For deaths per million, the US of A is below Belgium and Spain and somewhat above UK, Italy, and Sweden. Remember Sweden, and UK at least at first, consciously pursued a "let it rip" policy. Germany, of course, is an outlier downward.

There are many things causing all this; there are no complete answers at the moment.

Source is here https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries).

US States can be found here https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/).

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on October 15, 2020, 07:53:50 PM
Quote from: dismalist on October 15, 2020, 05:26:50 PM
For deaths per million, the US of A is below Belgium and Spain and somewhat above UK, Italy, and Sweden. Remember Sweden, and UK at least at first, consciously pursued a "let it rip" policy.

The US is already among the top 10 worst performers in the world by deaths per capita. Spain and Belgium are the only Western countries worse off by that measure.

Quote from: dismalist on October 15, 2020, 05:26:50 PMGermany, of course, is an outlier downward.

Only by Western standards. Germany has done two friggin' orders of magnitude worse, as measured by deaths per capita, than Taiwan or Vietnam.

I'm increasingly convinced that, in a way, 2020 may be the most momentuous year since 1492, for basically the opposite reason - that 2020 may well mark the end of the Western Era. Because the West's utterly dismal performance (only Latin America has mishandled it even more craptacularly - and even then it depends, because while Peru is the worst performer on the planet, Uruguay has done much better than basically any Western country other than New Zealand) is part of a pattern of failure, defeat and recklessness stretching back a couple of decades. But this is worse - Western defeats in Syria or Ukraine, or failures of financial governance leading to the Great recession, or Brexit chaos are one thing, but now the West is failing to protect even its political elites while Vietnam, a developing country, managed to largely protect everyone (outperforming every single Western country, bar none). But all the dozen or so worst performers as measured by deaths per capita are Western or Latin American countries - not a single Asian, African or Eastern European country among them. Asia is racing the West to the top, but when it comes to pandemic management the West isn't even in the running. We live in interesting times, to be sure. Not sure what it means for me, personally, in practice, as I'm too old to learn Mandarin, but it certainly reinforces my decision that my son must learn Japanese or Mandarin. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on October 15, 2020, 08:01:48 PM
Quotethat 2020 may well mark the end of the Western Era.

Nah, 1918 marked the end of the western era. :-(
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on October 15, 2020, 08:49:36 PM
Quote from: dismalist on October 15, 2020, 08:01:48 PM
Quotethat 2020 may well mark the end of the Western Era.

Nah, 1918 marked the end of the western era. :-(

Why? WWI victory was surely the coming of age of the US as a Great Power.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on October 15, 2020, 09:28:42 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on October 15, 2020, 08:49:36 PM
Quote from: dismalist on October 15, 2020, 08:01:48 PM
Quotethat 2020 may well mark the end of the Western Era.

Nah, 1918 marked the end of the western era. :-(

Why? WWI victory was surely the coming of age of the US as a Great Power.

The 1918 Spanish flu. :-(
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on October 16, 2020, 06:22:40 AM
My small, rural, poor county just hit 500 cases and the tiny independent city within hit 45.  Doesn't sound like much, but we're.....small.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on October 16, 2020, 08:42:38 AM
Quote from: dismalist on October 15, 2020, 09:28:42 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on October 15, 2020, 08:49:36 PM
Quote from: dismalist on October 15, 2020, 08:01:48 PM
Quotethat 2020 may well mark the end of the Western Era.

Nah, 1918 marked the end of the western era. :-(

Why? WWI victory was surely the coming of age of the US as a Great Power.

The 1918 Spanish flu. :-(

I don't think the West egregiously mishandled that one, given the resources, context etc at the time. I don't think Europe particularly mishandled the Black Death, either - incidentally, it seems only one Western national leader, the King of Castille, caught it. Compare the present pandemic ....
But more to the point, it's not so much that I think the consequences of corona are directly so consequential (although the Far East has been open for business for months while Europe heads towards another lockdown) as that I think this has shown the Emperor is naked.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on October 21, 2020, 02:15:07 PM
CDC changes its definition of "close contact":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/10/21/coronavirus-close-contact-cdc/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/10/21/coronavirus-close-contact-cdc/).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on October 21, 2020, 08:14:38 PM
The change in definition is likely because of many high school football teams instituting the 14 minute practice rule. Every 14 minutes the whistle blows and you space out for the next minute.  Therefore, no close contact under the old 15 minutes rule!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on October 24, 2020, 02:08:33 PM
Lack of epicenters associated with the current increase in coronavirus cases in the USA:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/10/coronavirus-election-day-surge/616822/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/10/coronavirus-election-day-surge/616822/).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on October 24, 2020, 04:36:01 PM
Vietnam seems to be reaping the benefits of its world-beating pandemic response:

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/is-vietnam-the-next-asian-miracle (https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/is-vietnam-the-next-asian-miracle)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:40 AM
After months of studies regarding virus and library materials, the final word seems to be that we only need to quarantine returned library materials for 24 hours.  And don't need to wipe them down in addition to that.  I'd been suspecting that we were moving in that direction.  The news will save our staff a good bit of time.  No more keeping stuff in the "book jail" for close to a week!

When I gave the staff the news, I thought that some of them might be leery about scaling back on our safety measures.  Instead they seem relieved to hear about it.  Guess they're finally tired of all the cleaning and quarantining. 

We'll continue disinfecting computers, etc. after each use, of course, and wearing masks inside the building.  And the sneeze guards will stay in place at the Circulation desk.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ciao_yall on October 27, 2020, 09:11:27 AM
Yeah, it's turning out the "can live on surfaces for 2 weeks thing" turns out to not be such a big deal after all.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 28, 2020, 10:56:58 AM
So, the Big14 starts football, and Wisconsin is looking great after their opener!

Sadly, the quarterback tested positive and is out 21 days. And now, so many players and coaches are positive the game Saturday with Nebraska is cancelled.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on October 28, 2020, 01:47:25 PM
Is there the looming possibility that our pets be subject TO MANDATORY Coved 19 testing?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on October 28, 2020, 02:17:22 PM
No. Is this a conspiracy theory you picked up from Breitbart?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on October 28, 2020, 03:32:07 PM
Quote from: Economizer on October 28, 2020, 01:47:25 PM
Is there the looming possibility that our pets be subject TO MANDATORY Coved 19 testing?

Why don't you try and put a 6" swab up the nose of a German Shepherd or a Pit Bull.  Then get back to us and report back if this still seems like a good idea.

Seriously dude, where do you come up with this stuff?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on October 28, 2020, 06:43:15 PM
Covering all the bases. Maybe that is not a good thing to do at present.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on October 28, 2020, 07:25:24 PM
Covering all the bases?   Did you really think of this yourself, or was the kernel of this idea planted in your mind from some reading or listening source of yours?

But let's work with this, see how it plays out: say the governor of your state (I do not know which one that is), *acting on the best scientific recommendations from his professional advisors, decides that public health needs would in fact require mandatory pet testing for covId-19 (note spelling)... on what basis would you, if you own a pet, refuse such an order, and why?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mahagonny on October 28, 2020, 07:43:27 PM
I might have missed something. I gathered that cats and dogs can get the virus but cannot give it to us.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on October 30, 2020, 08:37:53 AM
Well. Looks like the US is back at it, breaking records again. I can't imagine the numbers of new cases will improve over the next few weeks, given that so many people will be voting in person. It's really astonishing how thoroughly unprepared the country is, 10 months in. The first wave never stopped.


Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on October 30, 2020, 09:35:46 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 30, 2020, 08:37:53 AM
Well. Looks like the US is back at it, breaking records again. I can't imagine the numbers of new cases will improve over the next few weeks, given that so many people will be voting in person. It's really astonishing how thoroughly unprepared the country is, 10 months in. The first wave never stopped.

Europe ain't doing great, either.  There are no words for this $!@% virus.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on October 30, 2020, 12:12:21 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on October 30, 2020, 09:35:46 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 30, 2020, 08:37:53 AM
Well. Looks like the US is back at it, breaking records again. I can't imagine the numbers of new cases will improve over the next few weeks, given that so many people will be voting in person. It's really astonishing how thoroughly unprepared the country is, 10 months in. The first wave never stopped.

Europe ain't doing great, either.  There are no words for this $!@% virus.

Belgium, at the heart of the EU, is doing much worse than the US - though even before this wave Belgium already had worse numbers than any other country except Peru. Meanwhile, Taiwan has already passed 200 days with no new local covid transmissions, and domestic tourism is booming in Wuhan.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on November 04, 2020, 06:39:56 AM
The number of active infections has grown far worse in our county over the past week.  I don't know whether there are any theories for what's caused the spike.  I haven't yet heard of any particular super spreading events.

A staff member just lost an in-law unexpectedly yesterday.  Not to Covid--he was a greatly obese man in his early 50s who had had a severe heart attack last year and refused to lose the necessary weight to give the doctors a chance to treat him.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 04, 2020, 05:37:43 PM
Quote from: apl68 on November 04, 2020, 06:39:56 AM
The number of active infections has grown far worse in our county over the past week.  I don't know whether there are any theories for what's caused the spike.  I haven't yet heard of any particular super spreading events.

A staff member just lost an in-law unexpectedly yesterday.  Not to Covid--he was a greatly obese man in his early 50s who had had a severe heart attack last year and refused to lose the necessary weight to give the doctors a chance to treat him.

Were people traveling to political events out of the area?

Depending on the events, that might have caused the spike.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on November 05, 2020, 07:39:00 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 04, 2020, 05:37:43 PM
Quote from: apl68 on November 04, 2020, 06:39:56 AM
The number of active infections has grown far worse in our county over the past week.  I don't know whether there are any theories for what's caused the spike.  I haven't yet heard of any particular super spreading events.

A staff member just lost an in-law unexpectedly yesterday.  Not to Covid--he was a greatly obese man in his early 50s who had had a severe heart attack last year and refused to lose the necessary weight to give the doctors a chance to treat him.

Were people traveling to political events out of the area?

Depending on the events, that might have caused the spike.

M.

I suppose that's a possibility, but I haven't heard of people doing that.  I've never gotten the impression that we have many around here who are the rally-attending type.

Anecdotally, in recent days people have been taking social distancing and such much more seriously.  We're like so many places--caught in a cycle of relaxing vigilance, followed by tightening it when the virus blows up again.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on November 06, 2020, 04:28:37 AM
Quote from: apl68 on November 05, 2020, 07:39:00 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 04, 2020, 05:37:43 PM
Quote from: apl68 on November 04, 2020, 06:39:56 AM
The number of active infections has grown far worse in our county over the past week.  I don't know whether there are any theories for what's caused the spike.  I haven't yet heard of any particular super spreading events.

A staff member just lost an in-law unexpectedly yesterday.  Not to Covid--he was a greatly obese man in his early 50s who had had a severe heart attack last year and refused to lose the necessary weight to give the doctors a chance to treat him.

Were people traveling to political events out of the area?

Depending on the events, that might have caused the spike.

M.

I suppose that's a possibility, but I haven't heard of people doing that.  I've never gotten the impression that we have many around here who are the rally-attending type.

Anecdotally, in recent days people have been taking social distancing and such much more seriously.  We're like so many places--caught in a cycle of relaxing vigilance, followed by tightening it when the virus blows up again.

A local church hosted a Halloween outdoor gathering that apparently involved over 150 people.  The pastor swore they were following "science and even distributed bottles of hand sanitizer with the church name on them.  When challenged in a FB group focused on local coronovirus issues, he did allow as how maybe sorta perhaps not everyone followed the rules.  Then he called me "honey".
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 06, 2020, 07:22:16 AM
Looks like there were 122 000 new cases in the US yesterday.

I wonder whether it's even possible for a new administration to get things under control at this point...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on November 06, 2020, 08:23:30 AM
It will get much worse in the next few weeks from all those folks standing in line to vote. They will all start developing symptoms right before Thanksgiving. Of course, many assymptomatics will go visit family for Turkey day, which will mean we will still be cresting into December.
Hold on folks, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on November 06, 2020, 09:01:02 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 28, 2020, 07:25:24 PM
Covering all the bases?   Did you really think of this yourself, or was the kernel of this idea planted in your mind from some reading or listening source of yours?

But let's work with this, see how it plays out: say the governor of your state (I do not know which one that is), *acting on the best scientific recommendations from his professional advisors, decides that public health needs would in fact require mandatory pet testing for covId-19 (note spelling)... on what basis would you, if you own a pet, refuse such an order, and why?

I dont know why everyone assumes that pets cannot spread the virus when they have tested positive.

Look at the recent news from Denmark, where they are killing millions of mink and have evidence of such spread.  What is even more troublesome is that there is evidence that the virus is mutating in th emink population and then can pass back to humans.  Not good news for vaccines...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/6/denmark-found-214-people-infected-with-mink-related-covid-19
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on November 06, 2020, 09:48:10 AM
Industrialized animal farming of any type is literally a Petri dish for zoonotic disease.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 06, 2020, 10:18:17 AM
Quote from: spork on November 06, 2020, 09:48:10 AM
Industrialized animal farming of any type is literally a Petri dish for zoonotic disease.

Good point.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on November 06, 2020, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 06, 2020, 10:18:17 AM
Quote from: spork on November 06, 2020, 09:48:10 AM
Industrialized animal farming of any type is literally a Petri dish for zoonotic disease.

Good point.

Denmark is destroying minks to contain covid mutation. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/who-downplays-coronavirus-mink-mutation-risk-after-denmark-orders-huge-n1246726)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on November 06, 2020, 11:34:30 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on November 06, 2020, 08:23:30 AM
It will get much worse in the next few weeks from all those folks standing in line to vote. They will all start developing symptoms right before Thanksgiving. Of course, many assymptomatics will go visit family for Turkey day, which will mean we will still be cresting into December.
Hold on folks, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
As well as many symptomatic people. I've seen a poll in Switzerland where 15% of people with symptoms said they didn't (and wouldn't) get tested because they didn't want to self-isolate or notify people they had come into contact with.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on November 06, 2020, 11:47:44 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 06, 2020, 07:22:16 AM
Looks like there were 122 000 new cases in the US yesterday.

I wonder whether it's even possible for a new administration to get things under control at this point...

Seems mostly a job for governors and local leaders in the U.S.  The feds can work on vaccines, therapeutics, PPE, etc.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on November 06, 2020, 11:48:15 AM
Quote from: spork on November 06, 2020, 09:48:10 AM
Industrialized animal farming of any type is literally a Petri dish for zoonotic disease.

Of course, but if mink can spread it to humans, as demonstrated in Denmark, why wouldn't dogs be able to.  I just found it weird that experts automatically said the chances are slim when we don't actually know.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on November 06, 2020, 11:53:16 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 06, 2020, 11:47:44 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 06, 2020, 07:22:16 AM
Looks like there were 122 000 new cases in the US yesterday.

I wonder whether it's even possible for a new administration to get things under control at this point...

Seems mostly a job for governors and local leaders in the U.S.  The feds can work on vaccines, therapeutics, PPE, etc.

Really?  You don't think a national strategy and leadership on the issue would help?

I am in Canada, and while we have not done great, it has so far been much better than south of the border.  Part of this is a clear and consistent message from all levels of government. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on November 06, 2020, 12:38:46 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 06, 2020, 11:53:16 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 06, 2020, 11:47:44 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 06, 2020, 07:22:16 AM
Looks like there were 122 000 new cases in the US yesterday.

I wonder whether it's even possible for a new administration to get things under control at this point...

Seems mostly a job for governors and local leaders in the U.S.  The feds can work on vaccines, therapeutics, PPE, etc.

Really?  You don't think a national strategy and leadership on the issue would help?

I am in Canada, and while we have not done great, it has so far been much better than south of the border.  Part of this is a clear and consistent message from all levels of government. 

Yes, really.  The U.S. is not Canada, in so many ways.  Glad Canada is doing better.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on November 06, 2020, 12:55:22 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 06, 2020, 11:48:15 AM
Quote from: spork on November 06, 2020, 09:48:10 AM
Industrialized animal farming of any type is literally a Petri dish for zoonotic disease.

Of course, but if mink can spread it to humans, as demonstrated in Denmark, why wouldn't dogs be able to.  I just found it weird that experts automatically said the chances are slim when we don't actually know.

It would depend on whether dogs, cats, pet budgies or whatever have receptors for the virus to enter their cells and begin replication.  It's like humans don't get distemper and dogs don't catch a cold like humans do.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on November 06, 2020, 02:02:51 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on November 06, 2020, 12:55:22 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 06, 2020, 11:48:15 AM
Quote from: spork on November 06, 2020, 09:48:10 AM
Industrialized animal farming of any type is literally a Petri dish for zoonotic disease.

Of course, but if mink can spread it to humans, as demonstrated in Denmark, why wouldn't dogs be able to.  I just found it weird that experts automatically said the chances are slim when we don't actually know.

It would depend on whether dogs, cats, pet budgies or whatever have receptors for the virus to enter their cells and begin replication.  It's like humans don't get distemper and dogs don't catch a cold like humans do.

I guess I just wonder why they would say not to worry about it until we know.  Perhaps there was evidence and they just didn't mention it, but it seems weird to me that they wouldn't reference it of that were the case
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on November 06, 2020, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 06, 2020, 12:38:46 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 06, 2020, 11:53:16 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 06, 2020, 11:47:44 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 06, 2020, 07:22:16 AM
Looks like there were 122 000 new cases in the US yesterday.

I wonder whether it's even possible for a new administration to get things under control at this point...

Seems mostly a job for governors and local leaders in the U.S.  The feds can work on vaccines, therapeutics, PPE, etc.

Really?  You don't think a national strategy and leadership on the issue would help?

I am in Canada, and while we have not done great, it has so far been much better than south of the border.  Part of this is a clear and consistent message from all levels of government. 

Yes, really.  The U.S. is not Canada, in so many ways.  Glad Canada is doing better.

Yes, I have lived in both, and they are more different than it appears on the surface.  However, I still think the feds have a major role to play in helping control Covid.  Even if it  is symbolic....
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 06, 2020, 03:13:45 PM
Meanwhile, I just ran across this:

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Eo9M4-BrJA

Genius work over what is still a terrible situation....

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on November 06, 2020, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: mamselle on November 06, 2020, 03:13:45 PM
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Eo9M4-BrJA


Wow, that's amazing. So well done. "Curving can get flatter..."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on November 06, 2020, 07:10:29 PM
Yesterday, DC Mayor Bowser issued a new travel order for the city regarding visitors:
https://wtop.com/dc/2020/11/mayor-bowsers-newest-order-for-dc-visitors-need-to-get-tested/ (https://wtop.com/dc/2020/11/mayor-bowsers-newest-order-for-dc-visitors-need-to-get-tested/)
Maryland and Virginia are exempted.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on November 07, 2020, 06:18:07 AM
67 new cases in my county of 37,000.  Probably nursing homes, though masks are a political symbol here.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on November 09, 2020, 07:18:02 AM
The Pfizer vaccine news seems like real cause for optimism!  Nice way to start the week.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on November 09, 2020, 07:23:02 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 09, 2020, 07:18:02 AM
The Pfizer vaccine news seems like real cause for optimism!  Nice way to start the week.

Yes! We'll have to see if it holds up, but 90% effectiveness would be a game changer compared to the less optimistic estimates for vaccines.
The main problems with that one is that it has to be kept super chilled, which will make it harder to distribute, especially in less developed countries, and that it requires 2 doses. But there are lots of others under development, and this should be enough to get started with for healthcare workers, nursing home residents, and others at high risk.

This week just keeps getting better. . .
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on November 09, 2020, 08:39:12 AM
We have nearly 60 active cases now.  Anecdotally it appears that a lot of people couldn't resist Halloween partying, after all the church and civic events got cancelled.  We've had 13 people die of COVID in our county.  We've had a lot of people dying of all sorts of things lately.  This has been a bad year for us, only partially due to COVID.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 09, 2020, 09:30:15 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 09, 2020, 07:18:02 AM
The Pfizer vaccine news seems like real cause for optimism!  Nice way to start the week.

Cautious optimism. Even if a vaccine arrives, production and distribution are a problem, and it gets compounded if the conferred immunity is relatively brief or boosters are required. Billions of people need to vaccinated against COVID-19 at least once, maybe twice (or, worse, yearly!). But we also need to maintain the production and distribution of extant vaccines.

Johnson & Johnson is planning to scale up to a billion doses a year (IIRC by far the most of any single producer). CureVac's at 400 million. If we estimate 3 billion doses a year--which seems rather optimistic--that's still more than half the world getting zero doses. If you need two doses, we're down to a quarter of the world. And if you need yearly boosters, we're fucked. And all that's assuming no significant mutations (see: Danish mink).

So: cautious optimism. I'm not expecting to get it for a couple years, at least, and Canada has been really proactive about securing enough doses for the entire population (twice over or more).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on November 09, 2020, 09:40:49 AM
We need hope during these dark times and I'm hopeful.  It's certainly better news than hearing that the Pfizer trial failed.

As an analyst on CNBC said, it conveys to people that there can and will be an end to this thing; that if people just hang on awhile longer with the difficulties of masks, social distancing, financial concerns, etc., this will end.  With no end in sight, people get fatigued and hopeless.

I view vaccines as one part of the big strategy for beating this thing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on November 11, 2020, 12:52:27 PM
Mobility network models of COVID-19 explain inequities and inform reopening (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2923-3)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on November 11, 2020, 12:58:31 PM
New York just announced new restrictions. Indoor gatherings are limited to 10 persons.
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/11/11/nyc-health-officials-warn-of-second-wave-as-coronavirus-numbers-climb/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Chris J on November 11, 2020, 04:54:35 PM
Currently there is uncontrolled spread in every state except Hawaii and Vermont.
We are headed toward a horrifying number of months.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on November 11, 2020, 05:26:42 PM
Quote from: spork on November 11, 2020, 12:52:27 PM
Mobility network models of COVID-19 explain inequities and inform reopening (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2923-3)

This, too, makes a lot of sense.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on November 11, 2020, 07:14:56 PM
From WTOP Radio online--Gov. Hogan announced reduced capacity in restaurants and gatherings in Maryland:
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/11/maryland-coronavirus-update-november-10/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/11/maryland-coronavirus-update-november-10/)

A complementary article regarding the DC area:
https://wtop.com/local/2020/11/dc-area-health-officials-on-guard-as-covid-19-winter-approaches/ (https://wtop.com/local/2020/11/dc-area-health-officials-on-guard-as-covid-19-winter-approaches/)

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on November 12, 2020, 07:23:59 AM
The number of active cases in now declining in our county.  One town had to shut down its schools after 11 students tested positive, with 15 teachers and classes quarantined as a result.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on November 12, 2020, 03:33:19 PM
Follow up on Maryland's covid-19 prep for the winter months:
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/11/maryland-coronavirus-update-november-12/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/11/maryland-coronavirus-update-november-12/)
From WTOP Radio online (11/12/20)

Also, AAA Mid-Atlantic on Thanksgiving travel:
https://wtop.com/travel/2020/11/home-for-the-holiday-aaa-forecasts-thanksgiving-travel-at-historic-lows/  (https://wtop.com/travel/2020/11/home-for-the-holiday-aaa-forecasts-thanksgiving-travel-at-historic-lows/)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on November 13, 2020, 04:43:30 AM
Finally hitting nursing homes here.  Schools seem to be doing sorta OK, though not so in surrounding counties.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on November 13, 2020, 09:38:41 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 09, 2020, 09:30:15 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 09, 2020, 07:18:02 AM
The Pfizer vaccine news seems like real cause for optimism!  Nice way to start the week.

Cautious optimism. Even if a vaccine arrives, production and distribution are a problem, and it gets compounded if the conferred immunity is relatively brief or boosters are required. Billions of people need to vaccinated against COVID-19 at least once, maybe twice (or, worse, yearly!). But we also need to maintain the production and distribution of extant vaccines.

Johnson & Johnson is planning to scale up to a billion doses a year (IIRC by far the most of any single producer). CureVac's at 400 million. If we estimate 3 billion doses a year--which seems rather optimistic--that's still more than half the world getting zero doses. If you need two doses, we're down to a quarter of the world. And if you need yearly boosters, we're fucked. And all that's assuming no significant mutations (see: Danish mink).

So: cautious optimism. I'm not expecting to get it for a couple years, at least, and Canada has been really proactive about securing enough doses for the entire population (twice over or more).

I think if there was the will, it would be doable.  However, I don't know that there will be.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on November 13, 2020, 01:30:03 PM
Although the absolute numbers are still very small, especially compared to some other campuses in the larger geographic area, the number of positive cases at my university has doubled since Halloween weekend. All cases are students, except for a faculty member, who appears to have been infected through a family contact rather than from anyone on campus.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on November 13, 2020, 07:00:25 PM
From WTOP Radio: Gov. Northam of VA announces limits on gatherings and more starting Nov. 15th
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/11/virginia-coronavirus-update-november-13/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/11/virginia-coronavirus-update-november-13/)
Virginia leads the capitol region in the number of total confirmed covid-19 cases.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on November 13, 2020, 07:05:42 PM
I have been keeping track of the daily diagnosis numbers in our relatively isolated county. A snapshot of the numbers of COVID+ diagnoses same week in three different months:

Six months ago (June): 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0.

Five months ago (July): 10, 18, 10, 13, 4, 8.

This month: 75, 57, 36, 49, 51, 65.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on November 14, 2020, 06:08:18 AM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on November 13, 2020, 07:00:25 PM
From WTOP Radio: Gov. Northam of VA announces limits on gatherings and more starting Nov. 15th
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/11/virginia-coronavirus-update-november-13/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/11/virginia-coronavirus-update-november-13/)
Virginia leads the capitol region in the number of total confirmed covid-19 cases.

Most of the surge in cases is in SWVA where cult followers have eschewed masks with extreme defiance.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on November 14, 2020, 04:17:27 PM
I've just read that the Dakotas have the highest Covid rates per capita in the US. With 260k cases linked to that motorcycle rally back in August.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on November 16, 2020, 08:16:58 AM
A neighboring library has just shut down after two staff members tested positive.  They don't have a lot of space there to practice social distancing, so the whole place is now quarantined until after the holiday.

A salutary reminder to our staff to keep from getting lax on our own social distancing and masking among ourselves.  It kept us from having to shut down months ago, when two of our staff tested positive.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on November 16, 2020, 08:21:16 AM
What are people's thoughts here about the practice of meeting customers at the door, grilling them on how they feel, and zapping them with a temperature test?  I've seen that sort of thing described as "theater," meant to reassure customers that you're trying to do something even though there's no evidence that it actually works.  The temperature checks are of little benefit due to asymptomatic cases.

We've been asked why we don't do at-the-door screening like that.  Partly it's a staffing issue.  Mainly it's because it would be a lot of trouble to go to for little or no actual benefit.  We're masking, social distancing, and disinfecting after people.  Those are the real front-line defenses against the spread.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on November 16, 2020, 09:52:31 AM
Quote from: apl68 on November 16, 2020, 08:21:16 AM
What are people's thoughts here about the practice of meeting customers at the door, grilling them on how they feel, and zapping them with a temperature test?  I've seen that sort of thing described as "theater," meant to reassure customers that you're trying to do something even though there's no evidence that it actually works.  The temperature checks are of little benefit due to asymptomatic cases.

We've been asked why we don't do at-the-door screening like that.  Partly it's a staffing issue.  Mainly it's because it would be a lot of trouble to go to for little or no actual benefit.  We're masking, social distancing, and disinfecting after people.  Those are the real front-line defenses against the spread.

Yes, at this point it's theater, for the reasons you mention. In March, before people knew that such a high portion of infections were asymptomatic, it made a minimal amount of sense in certain situations, like entering a hospital for an appointment. But not now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on November 16, 2020, 01:03:36 PM
Quote from: apl68 on November 16, 2020, 08:21:16 AM
What are people's thoughts here about the practice of meeting customers at the door, grilling them on how they feel, and zapping them with a temperature test?  I've seen that sort of thing described as "theater," meant to reassure customers that you're trying to do something even though there's no evidence that it actually works.  The temperature checks are of little benefit due to asymptomatic cases.

We've been asked why we don't do at-the-door screening like that.  Partly it's a staffing issue.  Mainly it's because it would be a lot of trouble to go to for little or no actual benefit.  We're masking, social distancing, and disinfecting after people.  Those are the real front-line defenses against the spread.

Yes, this reminds me of the soldiers in airports in 2001 whose rifles had no bullets.  It was all just to make people feel safer. 

I suppose the true answer can be given by the disease experts who have studied all of these measures and their effectiveness.   For things like masks and gloves they have actual numbers on the reduction in disease transmission.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: fleabite on November 16, 2020, 03:17:16 PM
In my area, which is in pretty good shape, temperature tests are done routinely on entry to doctors' offices and museums but not libraries. I think the protocol is unlikely to catch more than a very small number of cases, but those it caught would likely be infectious (given the fever). That being so, I think it adds a little security that is useful when people will be entering areas populated with many vulnerable individuals (medical settings, nursing homes) or spending a long time inside (museums). For the moment, our libraries let people in only to pick up previously ordered books. I'm guessing that you don't have patrons spending a long time browsing inside at the moment, so I suspect taking temperatures would provide a relatively small benefit.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on November 16, 2020, 04:52:42 PM
Our local pl does not do temp checks, but does require every visitor, every time, to fill out a questionnaire wrt potential covid symptoms and contacts with covid + people, and give one's own contact info.   Walmart requires the staff to answer similar questions on reporting to work, and gives the temp check.   The temp check will of course tell whether you actually have a fever, but will do nothing for those asymptomatic cases.   However, of course, staff desiring not to be sent home from work could of course lie (as for that matter could library patrons).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on November 16, 2020, 07:24:01 PM
Here's the update about reopening plans in DC:
https://wtop.com/dc/2020/11/dc-coronavirus-update-november-16/ (https://wtop.com/dc/2020/11/dc-coronavirus-update-november-16/)
Posted on WTOP Radio online (11/16/20)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on November 17, 2020, 04:52:31 AM
Smolt's Karate does a temp check.  That will, at least, catch symptomatic cases (of something).  Which is all that can be done until real time Covid tests in <5min are available everywhere.

Is it Theater because it doesn't catch everything?  I would call it Theater when it doesn't do anything (like requiring a mask while you are driving in your car on the highway by yourself).

What's the alternative?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 17, 2020, 08:33:02 AM
^Unrelated, but coronavirus-related vent...

Why do I have to TELL my friend who is "pretty sure" she "might have something" that the word "viral" means "Spreads quickly" on the internet for a reason and she doesn't have time to play around with calling her cousin or asking me what I think might happen?

Fill out the online CDC survey, send it to your PCP pronto, and do what they say!!

I'm not an MD, I'm not YOUR MD, and if you even think you're sick, they're your best resource--not your cousin, not me, and not your building superintendent!

Brain fog might well be one of the symptoms, but you need to fight it enough to get appropriate care going, so hang up and get started on that survey!!

Sheesh. I care for this friend a lot but they love labyrinthine thinking too much sometimes, I think.

M.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on November 17, 2020, 09:23:10 AM
You may want to recommend your friend to get an at-home test kit. This one is fully covered by insurance (no deductible/copay), or the government for those who don't have insurance: https://www.pixel.labcorp.com/at-home-test-kits/covid-19-test-home-collection-kit

It requires a swab from the front of the nose, which is about as painless as a test could possibly be. Free overnight delivery & return via FedEx. No reason not to request this one if you feel like you might have symptoms.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 17, 2020, 10:50:11 AM
Thank you.

I'll forward that link to her now.

M.

ETA: Done.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on November 17, 2020, 03:33:49 PM
From WTOP Radio: Gov. Hogan has ordered bars and restaurants to reduce capacity in Maryland:
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/11/maryland-coronavirus-update-november-17/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/11/maryland-coronavirus-update-november-17/)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on November 18, 2020, 06:26:14 AM
Another spike in cases in our county.  It's said to be especially bad in the neighboring town where the schools have been shut down.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: OneMoreYear on November 18, 2020, 06:41:08 AM
Due to spikes, some of our area K12 school districts have decided to take an "extended fall break" until early January.  It appears that kids just won't have school in the month of December.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 18, 2020, 07:13:18 AM
There's an opening for prospective tutors.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on November 18, 2020, 08:08:51 AM
Families in Illinois with children playing team sports are going to Indiana each week for competitions since they can't in Illinois.   I have family members who are doing this.   Chicago is requiring a 14 day quarantine for those returning from a state like Indiana.  I suspect that this is not being obeyed.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on November 18, 2020, 12:15:33 PM
Good point.   Question for ye, around the country (and, for that matter, elsewhere)-- what is the level of enforcement for various covid mitigation policies imposed by states and localities?   There are strict quarantine and mask policies here in Mass., for instance, but more or less all on the honor system.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on November 18, 2020, 12:30:02 PM
I was in the grocery store yesterday (out of eggs).  They are stocked to the brim for Thanksgiving... Which means that the middle aisles are now full of 6'x6' pallets of cooking supplies.... which means that the shoppers are pushed even closer together. 
While there there were no fewer than 3 mask violating shoppers!  2 had no masks at all.  The third used his as a chin diaper, not a mask! 
So be warned!  There will be extra people in the stores this week, they will be pushed closer together by the additional food displays, and fewer are effectively wearing masks! 

IF YOU CAN, consider the no contact pick up OR home delivery. 

Dont make it this far into the term, to get sick at the finish line!  (OR if you are more of an optimist - Dont get sick at the starting line for the Christmas Vacation!!)

After yesterday's experience, Im going to have to rethink the initial mantra I was taught when this started:
"What do you need so desperately that you are willing to DIE to get at the  store?"
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 18, 2020, 12:31:59 PM
Quote from: clean on November 18, 2020, 12:30:02 PM
I was in the grocery store yesterday (out of eggs).  They are stocked to the brim for Thanksgiving... Which means that the middle aisles are now full of 6'x6' pallets of cooking supplies.... which means that the shoppers are pushed even closer together. 
While there there were no fewer than 3 mask violating shoppers!  2 had no masks at all.  The third used his as a chin diaper, not a mask! 
So be warned!  There will be extra people in the stores this week, they will be pushed closer together by the additional food displays, and fewer are effectively wearing masks! 

IF YOU CAN, consider the no contact pick up OR home delivery. 

Dont make it this far into the term, to get sick at the finish line!  (OR if you are more of an optimist - Dont get sick at the starting line for the Christmas Vacation!!)

After yesterday's experience, Im going to have to rethink the initial mantra I was taught when this started:
"What do you need so desperately that you are willing to DIE to get at the  store?"

Go really early in the morning or really late at night- if needed. Then, yes, get it delivered.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on November 18, 2020, 01:02:26 PM
I've been seeing substantial levels of mask compliance locally, but it's imperfect and sometimes sloppy.

Our City Council held their monthly meeting in the library's Community Room earlier this week.  Council members, Mayor, city department heads, and spectators were all packed in there--masking, yes, but without room for social distancing.  And they were there for an hour and a half!  I've never been more glad that a City Librarian isn't considered an important enough municipal officer to be required to attend Council meetings. 

I'm not really worried for our staff.  We're seldom in the Community Room ourselves, and nobody else is allowed to use it during the pandemic, so any virus in there will have plenty of opportunity to die out before we come into contact with it.  But wouldn't it be terrible if one of our Council meetings turned into a super-spreading event?  And if all of our city officials except the City Librarian ended up in quarantine?

Our Governor has been warned that at the rate we're going our state could have around another thousand COVID-19 deaths by Christmas.  He has long since put in place mask mandates and other measures, and is pleading for citizens, institutions, and municipalities to comply with them better.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on November 18, 2020, 01:18:28 PM
I am in Canada and have only seen one person not wearing a mask since it was required here many months ago.  I dont think there is much enforcement for the rules, but we were asked to wear masks.  Perhaps there is some truth to the stereotypes...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on November 18, 2020, 01:29:54 PM
Quote from: apl68 on November 18, 2020, 01:02:26 PM
I'm not really worried for our staff.  We're seldom in the Community Room ourselves, and nobody else is allowed to use it during the pandemic, so any virus in there will have plenty of opportunity to die out before we come into contact with it.  But wouldn't it be terrible if one of our Council meetings turned into a super-spreading event?  And if all of our city officials except the City Librarian ended up in quarantine?

My university is requiring faculty to attend fall graduation in person shortly after Thanksgiving. I have similar concerns about its role as a super-spreader event. No photo op is worth COVID.

AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on November 18, 2020, 01:42:02 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 18, 2020, 01:18:28 PM
I am in Canada and have only seen one person not wearing a mask since it was required here many months ago.  I dont think there is much enforcement for the rules, but we were asked to wear masks.  Perhaps there is some truth to the stereotypes...

That's a point I've tried to make before.  As blameworthy as certain leaders' responses to this may be, culture seems to be one of the main determinants in how well a given society deals with this pandemic.  That's why East Asian nations have by and large overcome it--people in their societies are heavily conditioned to do what they're told out in public.  That and China, the original epicenter of the outbreak, can call upon the iron hand of coercion.

I've already observed quite significant cultural shifts with regard to masking and social distancing where I am.  It's not that people aren't adapting.  It's that people in some places have a lot more adapting to do.  And in places where the pandemic wasn't mostly crushed early on, it has become such a long, hard slog that it is tougher to do everything that's necessary on a consistent basis.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on November 18, 2020, 01:48:03 PM
Our city has a mask mandate but the state does not. Our city has a mask mandate because we have 5 major hospitals here that are the major medical centers for at least 100 miles in every direction. The heads of the 5 hospitals have been holding the mayor's feet to the fire since June to maintain the mask mandate. They each deserve a fruit basket for these efforts. The mandate is currently set to expire next week, but I bet it will then get extended through the end of the year.
   I only shop early am, and the grocery stores here are pretty good about mandating masks, so I have felt pretty safe. But I have talked with students who live in the town next door and it's a free for all, with lots of people in stores without a mask anywhere to be seen.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on November 18, 2020, 03:49:49 PM
Quote from: AvidReader on November 18, 2020, 01:29:54 PM
Quote from: apl68 on November 18, 2020, 01:02:26 PM
I'm not really worried for our staff.  We're seldom in the Community Room ourselves, and nobody else is allowed to use it during the pandemic, so any virus in there will have plenty of opportunity to die out before we come into contact with it.  But wouldn't it be terrible if one of our Council meetings turned into a super-spreading event?  And if all of our city officials except the City Librarian ended up in quarantine?

My university is requiring faculty to attend fall graduation in person shortly after Thanksgiving. I have similar concerns about its role as a super-spreader event. No photo op is worth COVID.

AR.

I think it's time for a little faculty disobedience!  Offer to attend as a cardboard cutout or on a Zoom screen.  No way I'd go to an in-person event.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 18, 2020, 06:21:08 PM
At some point, chronologically, geographically, somewhere, sometime, there's been a shift of belief--from the belief that what you and others DO can affect a situation, toward a belief IN a physical agent--drug, shot, elixir, magic potion--that wil "make it all better."

That might be tied to some other shifts here or elsethen, but it's almost a...I dunno, sociological/anthropological kind of thing...in lines with the cultural differences raised above.

It puts me in mind of the shift Amory described between "fame" and "celebrity' that he pinpointed to, I think, sometime in the late 19th/early 20th c...a qualitative difference in focus or values or beliefs that created a new set of assumptions about both itself and other entities.

Maybe.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on November 19, 2020, 06:54:41 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on November 18, 2020, 03:49:49 PM
I think it's time for a little faculty disobedience!  Offer to attend as a cardboard cutout or on a Zoom screen.  No way I'd go to an in-person event.

I have considered that. We have had in-person classes all semester, so I've been exposed pretty much every weekday to small clumps of students anyway. Spouse--a "front line" worker anyway--has also offered to attend in my stead, fully clad in HAZMAT gear. Who would know?

The most frustrating part is that it is my first year here and I teach only lower division courses, so my presence there will not benefit any graduand. No student walking across the stage will care that I am there. I will be there for useless show.

AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on November 19, 2020, 07:42:23 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 18, 2020, 06:21:08 PM
At some point, chronologically, geographically, somewhere, sometime, there's been a shift of belief--from the belief that what you and others DO can affect a situation, toward a belief IN a physical agent--drug, shot, elixir, magic potion--that wil "make it all better."

M.

That's part of our problem--a hundred years' worth of "magic bullet" treatments for disease caused us to get lax.

I can remember reading triumphalist mid-century accounts of how Pasteur and Fleming and others conquered disease.  Turns out it wasn't quite that simple.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on November 19, 2020, 02:29:24 PM
From WTOP Radio:Contact tracing will be done as a major regional project among 4 states
https://wtop.com/local/2020/11/dc-maryland-virginia-and-west-virginia-join-in-covid-fight/ (https://wtop.com/local/2020/11/dc-maryland-virginia-and-west-virginia-join-in-covid-fight/)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on November 19, 2020, 04:42:40 PM
An ancient coronavirus-like epidemic drove adaptation in East Asians from 25,000 to 5,000 years ago (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.16.385401v1.full.pdf), claim researchers.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on November 20, 2020, 10:43:26 AM
Quote from: AvidReader on November 18, 2020, 01:29:54 PM
My university is requiring faculty to attend fall graduation in person shortly after Thanksgiving. I have similar concerns about its role as a super-spreader event. No photo op is worth COVID.

Update: email from university today encouraged everyone at the school to "continue to practice measures to minimize the opportunities for infection."

In apparently unrelated news, graduation is still proceeding in person as scheduled.

Spouse and I have determined that "faculty disobedience" (Mamselle's words upthread) is forthcoming, regardless of the penalties, but I'm secretly hoping that someone will realize the foolhardiness of this event and decide to move it online. Surely "10% of Graduating Class Stricken with Covid after Super-Spreader Commencement" would not be a desirable headline. What are these people thinking?

AR.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on November 20, 2020, 11:00:56 AM
Quote from: AvidReader on November 20, 2020, 10:43:26 AM
Quote from: AvidReader on November 18, 2020, 01:29:54 PM
My university is requiring faculty to attend fall graduation in person shortly after Thanksgiving. I have similar concerns about its role as a super-spreader event. No photo op is worth COVID.

Update: email from university today encouraged everyone at the school to "continue to practice measures to minimize the opportunities for infection."

In apparently unrelated news, graduation is still proceeding in person as scheduled.

Spouse and I have determined that "faculty disobedience" (Mamselle's words upthread) is forthcoming, regardless of the penalties, but I'm secretly hoping that someone will realize the foolhardiness of this event and decide to move it online. Surely "10% of Graduating Class Stricken with Covid after Super-Spreader Commencement" would not be a desirable headline. What are these people thinking?

AR.

Bizarre.  Is this in the United States where the virus is a seriously big problem nearly everywhere?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: OneMoreYear on November 20, 2020, 11:11:41 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 20, 2020, 11:00:56 AM
Quote from: AvidReader on November 20, 2020, 10:43:26 AM
Quote from: AvidReader on November 18, 2020, 01:29:54 PM
My university is requiring faculty to attend fall graduation in person shortly after Thanksgiving. I have similar concerns about its role as a super-spreader event. No photo op is worth COVID.

Update: email from university today encouraged everyone at the school to "continue to practice measures to minimize the opportunities for infection."

In apparently unrelated news, graduation is still proceeding in person as scheduled.

Spouse and I have determined that "faculty disobedience" (Mamselle's words upthread) is forthcoming, regardless of the penalties, but I'm secretly hoping that someone will realize the foolhardiness of this event and decide to move it online. Surely "10% of Graduating Class Stricken with Covid after Super-Spreader Commencement" would not be a desirable headline. What are these people thinking?

AR.

Bizarre.  Is this in the United States where the virus is a seriously big problem nearly everywhere?

Maybe your Uni is trying to avoid the barrage of emails & social media posts berating them for holding a virtual graduation because students are paying customers and no one asked what they wanted and they deserve to walk across the stage after all the time, effort, and money they've spent and how dare the University deny them this rite of passage. 
But, I agree that some faculty disobedience is definitely in order.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on November 20, 2020, 11:44:31 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 20, 2020, 11:00:56 AM
Bizarre.  Is this in the United States where the virus is a seriously big problem nearly everywhere?

Yes. However, I'm now in a state where lots of people don't think COVID is real [despite the numbers], or else they think it's "no big deal." Classes have been in person all semester, and I have (as far as I know) not caught it from any students--but 10 people spaced out in a large room for an hour is very different from hundreds (thousands?) of people sitting in a stadium. Even outdoors, this still seems like a poor choice.

A bigger school in our state with a much higher percentage of on-campus cases is also scheduled for an in-person graduation, so I guess this is just a thing here.

AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on November 20, 2020, 01:02:25 PM
Go to the graduation in a hazmat suit.  Imagine the negative publicity when those pictures get onto social media.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: fleabite on November 20, 2020, 01:07:39 PM
Quote from: Anselm on November 20, 2020, 01:02:25 PM
Go to the graduation in a hazmat suit.  Imagine the negative publicity when those pictures get onto social media.

AvidReader is a first-year faculty member. I think the hazmat suit idea, however attractive, should be reserved for faculty with tenure.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on November 20, 2020, 01:31:32 PM
Quote from: fleabite on November 20, 2020, 01:07:39 PM
Quote from: Anselm on November 20, 2020, 01:02:25 PM
Go to the graduation in a hazmat suit.  Imagine the negative publicity when those pictures get onto social media.

AvidReader is a first-year faculty member. I think the hazmat suit idea, however attractive, should be reserved for faculty with tenure.

Spouse and I actually discussed a hazmat suit (or similarly extensive PPE) at some length. Given that I am indeed new, and haven't interacted with many colleagues, I'm not actually sure which option (hazmat or absence) would be more frowned upon. I have indirect access to a range of PPE if necessary, but I'm also leery of using it on something so (in my estimation) frivolous, especially as it seems possible that we could have shortages again soon.

AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on November 20, 2020, 02:12:54 PM
The capacity restrictions are back in Maryland:
https://wtop.com/maryland/2020/11/maryland-re-imposing-coronavirus-restrictions-at-5pm/ (https://wtop.com/maryland/2020/11/maryland-re-imposing-coronavirus-restrictions-at-5pm/)
From WTOP Radio online.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 20, 2020, 02:36:17 PM
Quote from: AvidReader on November 20, 2020, 10:43:26 AM
Quote from: AvidReader on November 18, 2020, 01:29:54 PM
My university is requiring faculty to attend fall graduation in person shortly after Thanksgiving. I have similar concerns about its role as a super-spreader event. No photo op is worth COVID.

Update: email from university today encouraged everyone at the school to "continue to practice measures to minimize the opportunities for infection."

In apparently unrelated news, graduation is still proceeding in person as scheduled.

Spouse and I have determined that "faculty disobedience" (Mamselle's words upthread) is forthcoming, regardless of the penalties, but I'm secretly hoping that someone will realize the foolhardiness of this event and decide to move it online. Surely "10% of Graduating Class Stricken with Covid after Super-Spreader Commencement" would not be a desirable headline. What are these people thinking?

AR.

Actually, that was the post before mine--the_genetecist's, I believe--so I can't take the credit, but I suspect a little "faculty disobedience" would not come amiss in several recent scenarios.

Go for it.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 20, 2020, 02:42:32 PM
We're back under lockdown, with gatherings limited to our households. But... restaurants and bars will remain open for in-person indoors dining. I don't get it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on November 20, 2020, 03:03:57 PM
Quote from: AvidReader on November 20, 2020, 01:31:32 PM
Quote from: fleabite on November 20, 2020, 01:07:39 PM
Quote from: Anselm on November 20, 2020, 01:02:25 PM
Go to the graduation in a hazmat suit.  Imagine the negative publicity when those pictures get onto social media.

AvidReader is a first-year faculty member. I think the hazmat suit idea, however attractive, should be reserved for faculty with tenure.

Spouse and I actually discussed a hazmat suit (or similarly extensive PPE) at some length. Given that I am indeed new, and haven't interacted with many colleagues, I'm not actually sure which option (hazmat or absence) would be more frowned upon. I have indirect access to a range of PPE if necessary, but I'm also leery of using it on something so (in my estimation) frivolous, especially as it seems possible that we could have shortages again soon.

AR.

I dare you to ask your department chair if they would prefer that you appear in full PPE or graciously decline to attend. 
We could help design your wardrobe!
Does the tam go over or under the face shield?  Do you wear a mask in the colors of your current school or from your alma mater?  Should you try to match your gloves to your hood and gown or is it OK if they clash?  Foot coverings - are they gauche unless you pair them with scrub pants?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on November 20, 2020, 04:44:30 PM
Just make sure that your suit fist under your regalia! 

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on November 20, 2020, 07:11:32 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 20, 2020, 02:42:32 PM
We're back under lockdown, with gatherings limited to our households. But... restaurants and bars will remain open for in-person indoors dining. I don't get it.

It seems silly on the surface, but it is my understanding that contact tracing shows that the majority of spread is coming from social gatherings and restaurants are not a major contributor.  I have only been inside a restaurant once during the pandemic, but the protocols seemed pretty good and apparently are working fairly well.  In contrast, when people visit friends, they let their guard down and there are no protocols in place.

So, if it is true that restaurants are not a major source of spread, this makes sense and it would be wrong to close them down.  We should be using data to strategically shut things down rather than blanket shutdowns like in the beginning, unless eradicating Covid is the goal but it looks like that ship has sailed

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on November 21, 2020, 05:09:54 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 20, 2020, 02:36:17 PM
Actually, that was the post before mine--the_genetecist's, I believe--so I can't take the credit, but I suspect a little "faculty disobedience" would not come amiss in several recent scenarios.

Whoops! Sorry to both of you! I will deduct points from my post for the citation error.

Quote from: the_geneticist on November 20, 2020, 03:03:57 PM
I dare you to ask your department chair if they would prefer that you appear in full PPE or graciously decline to attend. 
We could help design your wardrobe!
Does the tam go over or under the face shield?  Do you wear a mask in the colors of your current school or from your alma mater?  Should you try to match your gloves to your hood and gown or is it OK if they clash?  Foot coverings - are they gauche unless you pair them with scrub pants?

the_geneticist, my Alma Mater colors clash with most things and would look particularly awful with the standard (pastel) gown and glove colors that I tend to see. But employing uni here has fancy branded face masks that I do not wear because they are very, very thin and cling to the face like a stocking mask, so I could put one of those somewhere (on top of something actually protective) to make sure the university was well-represented.

clean, my regalia is enormous and billowy. I might be able to fit an astronaut suit under it. Not sure how much room I have at the seams where the arms attach, though. That would be the tight spot.

AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on November 21, 2020, 06:13:10 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 20, 2020, 07:11:32 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 20, 2020, 02:42:32 PM
We're back under lockdown, with gatherings limited to our households. But... restaurants and bars will remain open for in-person indoors dining. I don't get it.

It seems silly on the surface, but it is my understanding that contact tracing shows that the majority of spread is coming from social gatherings and restaurants are not a major contributor.  I have only been inside a restaurant once during the pandemic, but the protocols seemed pretty good and apparently are working fairly well.  In contrast, when people visit friends, they let their guard down and there are no protocols in place.

So, if it is true that restaurants are not a major source of spread, this makes sense and it would be wrong to close them down.  We should be using data to strategically shut things down rather than blanket shutdowns like in the beginning, unless eradicating Covid is the goal but it looks like that ship has sailed

That's my sense as well.  The window to eradicate it has long since closed.  We're just going to have to live for it for a while.  That means letting people go about their business, while still following best practices to mitigate risk.  As you said, restaurant protocols seem to be working pretty well, so I've had no qualms about very occasionally going to one.  That said, I'm staying away from them in the run-up to Thanksgiving.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on November 21, 2020, 08:29:51 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 20, 2020, 07:11:32 PM
So, if it is true that restaurants are not a major source of spread, this makes sense and it would be wrong to close them down.  We should be using data to strategically shut things down rather than blanket shutdowns like in the beginning, unless eradicating Covid is the goal but it looks like that ship has sailed

Some researchers and policymakers recently pointed to dining in a restaurant as a major potential source of COVID spread.  This is why many restaurants try to do outdoor dining when the weather cooperates.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htm

"What is added by this report?

Findings from a case-control investigation of symptomatic outpatients from 11 U.S. health care facilities found that close contact with persons with known COVID-19 or going to locations that offer on-site eating and drinking options were associated with COVID-19 positivity. Adults with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results were approximately twice as likely to have reported dining at a restaurant than were those with negative SARS-CoV-2 test results.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Eating and drinking on-site at locations that offer such options might be important risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Efforts to reduce possible exposures where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, such as when eating and drinking, should be considered to protect customers, employees, and communities."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: histchick on November 21, 2020, 08:55:03 AM
Quote from: AvidReader on November 19, 2020, 06:54:41 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on November 18, 2020, 03:49:49 PM
I think it's time for a little faculty disobedience!  Offer to attend as a cardboard cutout or on a Zoom screen.  No way I'd go to an in-person event.

I have considered that. We have had in-person classes all semester, so I've been exposed pretty much every weekday to small clumps of students anyway. Spouse--a "front line" worker anyway--has also offered to attend in my stead, fully clad in HAZMAT gear. Who would know?

The most frustrating part is that it is my first year here and I teach only lower division courses, so my presence there will not benefit any graduand. No student walking across the stage will care that I am there. I will be there for useless show.

AR.
I'd start having symptoms.  In my case, though, my chair wouldn't even question my absence. 

Now I'm really glad our place is being smart about graduation.  Some of the graduates are royally pissed about a virtual ceremony.  I'm pissed that we are graduating students who hadn't figured out in, oh, I don't know, AUGUST, that there was no way the ceremony would be in-person.   
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morden on November 21, 2020, 04:04:39 PM
Our place did a drive in ceremony with a small platform party (all appropriately distanced outside) and a large screen. Graduates still had gowns and took pictures by their cars. Families honked when their particular graduate's name was displayed.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on November 21, 2020, 04:21:00 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 21, 2020, 08:29:51 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 20, 2020, 07:11:32 PM
So, if it is true that restaurants are not a major source of spread, this makes sense and it would be wrong to close them down.  We should be using data to strategically shut things down rather than blanket shutdowns like in the beginning, unless eradicating Covid is the goal but it looks like that ship has sailed

Some researchers and policymakers recently pointed to dining in a restaurant as a major potential source of COVID spread.  This is why many restaurants try to do outdoor dining when the weather cooperates.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htm

"What is added by this report?

Findings from a case-control investigation of symptomatic outpatients from 11 U.S. health care facilities found that close contact with persons with known COVID-19 or going to locations that offer on-site eating and drinking options were associated with COVID-19 positivity. Adults with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results were approximately twice as likely to have reported dining at a restaurant than were those with negative SARS-CoV-2 test results.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Eating and drinking on-site at locations that offer such options might be important risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Efforts to reduce possible exposures where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, such as when eating and drinking, should be considered to protect customers, employees, and communities."

I imagine that this will depend on the location and specific policies that are in place.  I think the poster I was replying to is in Canada (as am I), and they have said that based on contact tracing in my province, that restaurants are not a major contributor and that social gatherings are a much bigger culprit.  As such, it may make sense to restrict social gatherings while allowing restaurants to continue.  This is especially true given the economic factors.

I will also mention that the fact people who eat out more are getting Covid more does not mean that it was from eating out.  People who eat out more during a pandemic are probably also more likely to visit friends, go to gyms, and do all sorts of things.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: fleabite on November 21, 2020, 06:33:55 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 21, 2020, 04:21:00 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 21, 2020, 08:29:51 AM

Some researchers and policymakers recently pointed to dining in a restaurant as a major potential source of COVID spread.  This is why many restaurants try to do outdoor dining when the weather cooperates.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htm

"What is added by this report?

Findings from a case-control investigation of symptomatic outpatients from 11 U.S. health care facilities found that close contact with persons with known COVID-19 or going to locations that offer on-site eating and drinking options were associated with COVID-19 positivity. Adults with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results were approximately twice as likely to have reported dining at a restaurant than were those with negative SARS-CoV-2 test results.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Eating and drinking on-site at locations that offer such options might be important risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Efforts to reduce possible exposures where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, such as when eating and drinking, should be considered to protect customers, employees, and communities."

I will also mention that the fact people who eat out more are getting Covid more does not mean that it was from eating out.  People who eat out more during a pandemic are probably also more likely to visit friends, go to gyms, and do all sorts of things.

That is true. However the study in question did find that "[n]o significant differences were observed in the bivariate analysis between case-patients and control-participants in shopping; gatherings with ≤10 persons in a home; going to an office setting; going to a salon; gatherings with >10 persons in a home; going to a gym; using public transportation; going to a bar/coffee shop; or attending church/religious gathering."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on November 22, 2020, 04:54:57 AM
Quote from: fleabite on November 21, 2020, 06:33:55 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 21, 2020, 04:21:00 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 21, 2020, 08:29:51 AM

Some researchers and policymakers recently pointed to dining in a restaurant as a major potential source of COVID spread.  This is why many restaurants try to do outdoor dining when the weather cooperates.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htm

"What is added by this report?

Findings from a case-control investigation of symptomatic outpatients from 11 U.S. health care facilities found that close contact with persons with known COVID-19 or going to locations that offer on-site eating and drinking options were associated with COVID-19 positivity. Adults with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results were approximately twice as likely to have reported dining at a restaurant than were those with negative SARS-CoV-2 test results.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Eating and drinking on-site at locations that offer such options might be important risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Efforts to reduce possible exposures where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, such as when eating and drinking, should be considered to protect customers, employees, and communities."

I will also mention that the fact people who eat out more are getting Covid more does not mean that it was from eating out.  People who eat out more during a pandemic are probably also more likely to visit friends, go to gyms, and do all sorts of things.

That is true. However the study in question did find that "[n]o significant differences were observed in the bivariate analysis between case-patients and control-participants in shopping; gatherings with ≤10 persons in a home; going to an office setting; going to a salon; gatherings with >10 persons in a home; going to a gym; using public transportation; going to a bar/coffee shop; or attending church/religious gathering."

The study also lists a number of limitations and specifically says it may not apply broadly across the US (and by extension to other countries).  One thing they highlight is that bars and coffee shops are lumped together.  I have no doubt that bars are a problem, alcohol does not lead to cautious adherence to social distancing, but that doesn't mean it apples to all types of dining.  Policies vary a lot by region, including the density of people allowed, etc.

My main point is that most regions are doing extensive contact tracing and as we determine the types of business/activities that are contributing to spread locally, this should be used to guide policy rather than blanket shutdowns (unless it is completely out of control).  As mentioned, where I am they have found that social events are a much bigger contributor than restaurants and have acted accordingly.  Provided they are actually basing this decision on the data, it seems reasonable.

It is quite possible that this is not the case in other regions, and they should act based on their regional data.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 22, 2020, 10:38:32 AM
Not going, but if I were, about this time of the year is when I'd be planning my annual r esearch-family visit-adventure trip to Europe. Sigh--or as Merce used to say, 《le grand sigh》...

Just ran into a reference to the Caveau de la Huchette (jazz club on the Left Bank) that a friend and I once closed down at 2.30 and caught the last (3AM) bus back to our hostel near Pere-La Chaise...d'Artagnan/HI, if anyone's interested...and now I'm doing Google map walkabouts and remembering museum visits long past...sigh.

No BnF, no croque-m'sieurs at the little bistro near the Palais-Royale, no lobster bisque in Auxerre...sigh. And my poor 《new》accordion is sitting at my cousin's in Liege, with no-one to play it....will it ever forgive me?

I know I'll get to go back, just have to put on the big-girl pants and get through this, but, serious regrets here--and en generale, 《je ne regrette rien》...

Putting Aznavour on loop now...

;--》

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 22, 2020, 12:24:16 PM
And sorry for the double, but I realized I was so pent-up over not going that I just did a "itineraire fantastique" to assuage my wanderlust (to mix metaphors as well as languages rather completely).

I'd be able to do it in six weeks if I really did it all, and I left a LOT out...but at least I've thought through what I'd miss and who I'd like to stay in touch with for the next month or two by substitution.

OK, back to work...

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on November 22, 2020, 12:50:34 PM
I hope you get to go soon, mamselle, and I hope you get to catch up with some good friends over the semester break in the meantime.
AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 22, 2020, 02:17:42 PM
Quote from: AvidReader on November 22, 2020, 12:50:34 PM
I hope you get to go soon, mamselle, and I hope you get to catch up with some good friends over the semester break in the meantime.
AR.

Thanks. I appreciate the good thoughts!

I don't really think I'll want to travel until after next summer.

Even with the potential vaccines working, it will take time for things to sort themselves out.

And I only partially get a semester break right now, since my private music students and my non-profit EA work are ongoing, whatever else is going on...it will be late December before I'm in the clear, time-wise.

But I do indeed plan to be in touch with friends!

And I might just have to pull up some recipes and learn to make a few things (like that lobster bisque, and a more authentic croque m'sieur) that I won't get on that side of the puddle, but can indeed make on this.

La vie continue....

;--}

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on November 23, 2020, 07:42:40 AM
I understand your disappointment.  My fall travel plans had to be scaled back this year too.  I did do a little travel in-state a few weeks ago.  Enough to do some hiking at favorite state parks, visit a museum, and hit some book stores to get stocked up with reading material for the rest of the year.

I remember merce's "Le sigh."  Mamselle and merce traveling to France together--now that would be an interesting trip to hear about!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 23, 2020, 08:09:10 AM
Quote from: apl68 on November 23, 2020, 07:42:40 AM
I understand your disappointment.  My fall travel plans had to be scaled back this year too.  I did do a little travel in-state a few weeks ago.  Enough to do some hiking at favorite state parks, visit a museum, and hit some book stores to get stocked up with reading material for the rest of the year.

I remember merce's "Le sigh."  Mamselle and merce traveling to France together--now that would be an interesting trip to hear about!

We actually had a couple of meet-ups, and discussed it in passing, once. Our time schedules didn't quite mesh, though.

However, last night, in a fit of procrastinatory imagination, I did construct a "Fantasy tour" and plotted all the transportation on Google maps.

I'd probably leave mid-December, say, the 14th, and come back mid-January or a little later, say, the 20th. Not doing this, really,  but one can dream...!

There are several libraries and cathedrals I'd visit and work in, one (Vezelay) I promised myself I'd visit on a late friend's behalf, and a few cousins to see as well.

Plus a newly-identified family site (Isbergues, France), where my grandfather's Belgian Protestant father had gone to work in the coal mines when his Catholic wife's Liegeiois priest threatened to sic some local thugs on him if he married her. (they did marry secretly and moved away; I'm looking for the civil marriage documents now).

They later moved to the US; misspellings on several US census and army documents made his birthplace hard to figure out, then one gave it correctly, and I'm working backwards from there.

The rest  is from a letter my Belgian cousin recently found and let me copy.

So, family--and other kinds of-- history are never dry and boring...

Hence all the geneaology sites are getting a lot of business lately, since that's one of the things people have turned to in current circumstances...to re-rail the thread again...

;--》

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 23, 2020, 10:53:39 AM
I need advice on how to deal with family who think that this virus is 'not a big deal.' Actually, I would say these people invest heavily in conspiracy theory.

If they come over here, I'm not answering the door.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 23, 2020, 11:19:46 AM
That'd be the advice I'd give...

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on November 23, 2020, 02:26:57 PM
Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.604339/full). Translated badly from French, plus lots of statistical jargon. Basic conclusion: Covid-19 death rate correlates with population age and prevalence of non-communicable lifestyle diseases, while NPIs make no difference.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on November 23, 2020, 08:41:41 PM
Given that we have three good vaccines now, I suspect we'll have widespread availability (in the US) around March. I'm booking some fun vacation travel for end of May, just to be on the safe side. Massive discounts on airfare right now, hotel rates are way down, and I suspect emailing a resort hotel and asking for a discount or a room upgrade is pretty likely to work out right now. By the time summer comes around, rates will be insanely high: pent-up demand, people have money to burn, and there will be fewer hotels and planes operational as travel starts ramping up again. And at 95% efficacy, nobody who is vaccinated will be doing any social distancing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on November 23, 2020, 09:14:26 PM
Quote from: spork on November 23, 2020, 02:26:57 PM
Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.604339/full). Translated badly from French, plus lots of statistical jargon. Basic conclusion: Covid-19 death rate correlates with population age and prevalence of non-communicable lifestyle diseases, while NPIs make no difference.
Quote from: spork on November 23, 2020, 02:26:57 PM
Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.604339/full). Translated badly from French, plus lots of statistical jargon. Basic conclusion: Covid-19 death rate correlates with population age and prevalence of non-communicable lifestyle diseases, while NPIs make no difference.

They don't seem to have looked at the most obvious, almost certainly strongest correlation: region (as distinct from latitude), although to some extent that's also got to do with their data being "old." It's only in the Americas and in Europe, and perhaps some parts of the Middle East, that the pandemic isn't under control (large numbers of new cases). All of the countries with the worst total mortality rates (covid deaths/pop.), by multiple orders of magnitude, are either in the Americas or in Europe (esp. Western Europe). This includes countries with relatively young populations, like Peru, Bolivia or Ecuador, while countries elsewhere can have very low mortality rates even with very elderly populations, most obviously Japan. I'm not saying that mortality rates don't correlate with age, or that they don't correlate more with age than with other factors they looked at, just not as much as with region. That gap is increasing and has been for a while (so in all fairness it wasn't as dramatic when they crunched the numbers). It's also not clear to me if actual compliance with government measures was somehow taken into account, as distinct from nominal government intervention (not trivial to measure, of course) - nominal restrictions were widely ignored in Peru, for example.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 23, 2020, 10:43:33 PM
Last I checked, India was part of Asia. And it most definitely does not have the virus under control, and its death rate is not good, either.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on November 24, 2020, 04:17:13 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 23, 2020, 10:43:33 PM
Last I checked, India was part of Asia. And it most definitely does not have the virus under control, and its death rate is not good, either.

On a per capita basis they are doing much better than most st of the countries listed.  I am actually surprised it has not exploded much more dramatically there.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on November 24, 2020, 07:43:19 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 24, 2020, 04:17:13 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 23, 2020, 10:43:33 PM
Last I checked, India was part of Asia. And it most definitely does not have the virus under control, and its death rate is not good, either.

On a per capita basis they are doing much better than most st of the countries listed.  I am actually surprised it has not exploded much more dramatically there.

India has only 97 deaths per million pop. The US figure is about 8 times higher, and Belgium's is nearly 14 times higher.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on November 24, 2020, 08:15:17 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on November 24, 2020, 07:43:19 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 24, 2020, 04:17:13 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 23, 2020, 10:43:33 PM
Last I checked, India was part of Asia. And it most definitely does not have the virus under control, and its death rate is not good, either.

On a per capita basis they are doing much better than most st of the countries listed.  I am actually surprised it has not exploded much more dramatically there.

India has only 97 deaths per million pop. The US figure is about 8 times higher, and Belgium's is nearly 14 times higher.

Their numbers are also falling while the US and many other countries are still climbing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on November 24, 2020, 08:55:06 AM
Do most analysts have confidence that COVID cases and deaths data reported by various countries are likely to be accurate?  I am skeptical.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on November 24, 2020, 09:32:08 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 24, 2020, 08:55:06 AM
Do most analysts have confidence that COVID cases and deaths data reported by various countries are likely to be accurate?  I am skeptical.

I don't know about actual analysts, but that's why I tend to look at the number of deaths rather than the number of cases - deaths are likely to be less underreported I think, and thus more comparable internationally. The testing rate varies dramatically between countries, but there are still large differences between countries that test heavily, I'm thinking S. Korea vs the US. Both have now tested extensively, so the death rates are likely a fair comparison. On the other hand, some countries that do little testing still have high official death rates (Mexico, for example) and thus surely have truly god-awful real figures. I also prefer looking at the death rate because it also tells you something about how effectively hospitals are coping, etc.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on November 24, 2020, 10:19:12 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on November 24, 2020, 09:32:08 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 24, 2020, 08:55:06 AM
Do most analysts have confidence that COVID cases and deaths data reported by various countries are likely to be accurate?  I am skeptical.

I don't know about actual analysts, but that's why I tend to look at the number of deaths rather than the number of cases - deaths are likely to be less underreported I think, and thus more comparable internationally. The testing rate varies dramatically between countries, but there are still large differences between countries that test heavily, I'm thinking S. Korea vs the US. Both have now tested extensively, so the death rates are likely a fair comparison. On the other hand, some countries that do little testing still have high official death rates (Mexico, for example) and thus surely have truly god-awful real figures. I also prefer looking at the death rate because it also tells you something about how effectively hospitals are coping, etc.

I would highly recommend looking at excess mortality data also.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on November 24, 2020, 10:31:50 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 24, 2020, 10:19:12 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on November 24, 2020, 09:32:08 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 24, 2020, 08:55:06 AM
Do most analysts have confidence that COVID cases and deaths data reported by various countries are likely to be accurate?  I am skeptical.

I don't know about actual analysts, but that's why I tend to look at the number of deaths rather than the number of cases - deaths are likely to be less underreported I think, and thus more comparable internationally. The testing rate varies dramatically between countries, but there are still large differences between countries that test heavily, I'm thinking S. Korea vs the US. Both have now tested extensively, so the death rates are likely a fair comparison. On the other hand, some countries that do little testing still have high official death rates (Mexico, for example) and thus surely have truly god-awful real figures. I also prefer looking at the death rate because it also tells you something about how effectively hospitals are coping, etc.

I would highly recommend looking at excess mortality data also.

Yes. With time we will have a much clearer picture of how deadly SARS-CoV-2 is and to whom.

Any country with low prevalence and a high case fatality ratio is grossly undercounting cases, either by choice or by circumstance.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on November 24, 2020, 11:16:43 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 24, 2020, 08:15:17 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on November 24, 2020, 07:43:19 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 24, 2020, 04:17:13 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 23, 2020, 10:43:33 PM
Last I checked, India was part of Asia. And it most definitely does not have the virus under control, and its death rate is not good, either.

On a per capita basis they are doing much better than most st of the countries listed.  I am actually surprised it has not exploded much more dramatically there.

India has only 97 deaths per million pop. The US figure is about 8 times higher, and Belgium's is nearly 14 times higher.

Their numbers are also falling while the US and many other countries are still climbing.

I understand that India had quite drastic shutdowns and curfews. Public transportation, including air traffic was suspended and people were required to stay home unless they had to go to work. Schools and colleges were closed. Grocery stores were open only for a certain number of hours a day. This was during the early stages of the pandemic. I'm not sure what restrictions are in effect now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 26, 2020, 11:27:49 AM
I found out that some of my relatives are planning to get together up North- about 17 of them.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on November 26, 2020, 06:48:16 PM
Gov. Hogan sent state troopers throughout Maryland to enforce covid-19 rules. So far, no arrests:
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/11/no-arrests-so-far-as-maryland-state-police-enforce-covid-19-rules/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/11/no-arrests-so-far-as-maryland-state-police-enforce-covid-19-rules/)
Scroll down past the links bracket/break for the 2nd half of the article. Yesterday, an automated alert went out that bars and restaurants needed to be closed by 10 pm.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 26, 2020, 08:52:01 PM
The Supreme Court ruled against Cuomo's attendance limits for churches today.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on November 27, 2020, 05:02:39 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 26, 2020, 08:52:01 PM
The Supreme Court ruled against Cuomo's attendance limits for churches today.

Churches:  The New Death Pods
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on November 28, 2020, 12:16:36 PM
One of my very good Comp II live virtual lecture (LVL) students emailed me yesterday evening:  she's in the hospital with COVID and pneumonia.  She's a really sweet young girl, and I"m worried about her.  They usually haven't been hospitalizing young people around here unless they're very sick, plus, STL hospitals are full to the rafters right now. (I have several nurse friends working at different places, and one said they've started looking for beds in Chicago where they can send patients if needed.)  My student has bad asthma, and an attack is what landed her in the ER Thanksgiving night.  Her family all tested positive a couple of weeks ago, but she was negative then; she was most worried about her sister--who I'd taught last spring!--because the sister also has asthma and was very sick.

This stuff is scary.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: fleabite on November 28, 2020, 04:27:48 PM
AmLitHist, directing all good thoughts towards your hospitalized student. It is scary stuff. I hope she pulls through, and quickly.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: wareagle on November 30, 2020, 12:32:46 PM
AmLitHist, do you have an update on your student?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on November 30, 2020, 06:29:36 PM
From WTOP Radio online: Video interview with Dr. Fauci and virus safety
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/11/fauci-on-covid-19-were-in-a-particularly-vulnerable-period/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/11/fauci-on-covid-19-were-in-a-particularly-vulnerable-period/)
Posted 11/30/20
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 01, 2020, 07:14:43 AM
This morning we had somebody trying to book the library's meeting room to hold a meeting in protest of masking rules.  I told him that we couldn't hold such a meeting here, since we had to go by the Governor's indoor masking mandate.  Then I sent out an e-mail to our Mayor, giving her a heads up and letting her know that she has support in standing firm against such foolishness.

I just don't get people sometimes.  We have a local mother of three dying of COVID right now.  And people can't be bothered to wear masks?  In cold weather no less?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on December 01, 2020, 08:35:26 AM
Quote from: apl68 on December 01, 2020, 07:14:43 AM
This morning we had somebody trying to book the library's meeting room to hold a meeting in protest of masking rules.  I told him that we couldn't hold such a meeting here, since we had to go by the Governor's indoor masking mandate.  Then I sent out an e-mail to our Mayor, giving her a heads up and letting her know that she has support in standing firm against such foolishness.

I just don't get people sometimes.  We have a local mother of three dying of COVID right now.  And people can't be bothered to wear masks?  In cold weather no less?

How much has the media shown images of what's happening inside hospitals? Not happening where I live. But any demonstration against basic safety precautions, no matter how small, gets extensive coverage.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on December 01, 2020, 12:11:14 PM
RE:  my student with COVID:  she emailed me last night, asking if it's OK if she tries to finish the semester, rather than taking the incomplete I've offered.  She's that kind of student.*  I told her of course she can, but if she finds it's too much, the offer still stands. 

She got out of the hospital yesterday morning--not because she's completely well, but because the hospital is hurting for bed space, and since her entire family has already had the virus and recovered, she was the best candidate to be released into home care provided by her mom and sister.

I hope she recovers well, but I also hope she emails me in a day or two and requests the incomplete.  This class isn't all that important in the big picture, and I'd rather have her finish up over the break and focus now on getting some rest and getting better, instead.
---
*I was that student myself:  I had pneumonia most of the fall of my second year of college.

The college doctor assured me I wasn't contagious, gave me some good cough syrup that kept me quiet for a couple of hours, and told me to do what I felt like doing.

Instead of going home and getting well, I'd drag myself to classes, go back to the dorm and do my homework, have girls on my floor bring food up from the Dining Commons to me, and sleep--then do it all again the next day, for about 2 months.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: wareagle on December 01, 2020, 12:31:21 PM
Quote from: AmLitHist on December 01, 2020, 12:11:14 PM
RE:  my student with COVID:  she emailed me last night, asking if it's OK if she tries to finish the semester, rather than taking the incomplete I've offered.  She's that kind of student.*  I told her of course she can, but if she finds it's too much, the offer still stands. 

She got out of the hospital yesterday morning--not because she's completely well, but because the hospital is hurting for bed space, and since her entire family has already had the virus and recovered, she was the best candidate to be released into home care provided by her mom and sister.

I hope she recovers well, but I also hope she emails me in a day or two and requests the incomplete.  This class isn't all that important in the big picture, and I'd rather have her finish up over the break and focus now on getting some rest and getting better, instead.
---
*I was that student myself:  I had pneumonia most of the fall of my second year of college.

The college doctor assured me I wasn't contagious, gave me some good cough syrup that kept me quiet for a couple of hours, and told me to do what I felt like doing.

Instead of going home and getting well, I'd drag myself to classes, go back to the dorm and do my homework, have girls on my floor bring food up from the Dining Commons to me, and sleep--then do it all again the next day, for about 2 months.

I am glad she has her mom and sister to take care of her.  Sounds very scary.

I'm sure she appreciates your offer of the Incomplete.  Professors as caring as you make my job a whole lot easier.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: smallcleanrat on December 01, 2020, 04:55:10 PM
How is everybody dealing with the effects of all the extra screen-time necessary to do so many things remotely?

Even with forcing myself to take breaks, there are days I have to be on Zoom pretty much all day. Been getting migraines 3-4 days out of every week. I'm often icing my head between meetings.

When I can get away with it, I turn my gaze towards the wall to get a break from the screen but this only does so much.

Anyone else been noticing things like eyestrain and headaches? Any suggestions for remedies?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ciao_yall on December 01, 2020, 05:00:07 PM
Up until they shut down our yoga studios I found class a few days a week pretty helpful.

Now I'm just doing light weight lifting and a few stretches (cat/cow, cobra, updog).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 01, 2020, 08:51:50 PM
I have a funeral to attend tomorrow and SO's cousin is positive. This cousin came into contact with other people on SO's side who will attend this funeral.

I am terrified. I have health issues and a potential surgery in the next week. Part of me wants to stay home and have SO sleep in another room when he gets back from it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: smallcleanrat on December 01, 2020, 08:58:35 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 01, 2020, 08:51:50 PM
I have a funeral to attend tomorrow and SO's cousin is positive. This cousin came into contact with other people on SO's side who will attend this funeral.

I am terrified. I have health issues and a potential surgery in the next week. Part of me wants to stay home and have SO sleep in another room when he gets back from it.

Sounds more than reasonable. Would anyone really be offended if you decided not to attend (for very valid reasons)?

Sorry you're going through this evil_physics_witchcraft. Please stay well.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on December 01, 2020, 09:00:35 PM
Couldn't you just stay home? Tell them that your are following your physician's orders.

Your SO should quarantine for the requisite number of days. SO should be advocating on your behalf, explaining to others why you are unable to attend.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 01, 2020, 09:26:34 PM
We're thinking of going to the visitation for 5-10 minutes, paying our respects and then leaving (while wearing masks and social distancing).

Edit: Or, we may just go to the burial (outside vs. inside).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on December 02, 2020, 05:53:31 AM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on December 01, 2020, 04:55:10 PM

[. . .]

Anyone else been noticing things like eyestrain and headaches? Any suggestions for remedies?

I have four suggestions.

I have a pair of prescription eyeglasses with focal length set to computer screen distance (farther away than is the case with traditional reading glasses). I love them.

Headaches might have a neuromuscular origin.  Physical movement of your head, neck, shoulders, etc. will help alleviate the strain of keeping your head essentially frozen in place for long periods of time. I have a standing desk converter so I'm standing quite often while at the computer; I'm more physically mobile in that posture. I also take breaks to get out of the chair for yoga and physical therapy-type exercises. Even just three minutes every hour does wonders.

Display settings and room lighting affect eye strain.  My work-issued machine is an HP Elitebook laptop with an HD screen (1920 X 1080). It produces a very mediocre image, with glare and washed-out colors no matter how I change the settings. I connect it to a Dell external monitor; same resolution but better image. Better still is my ASUS Chromebook, which is also the same resolution but the display is much better engineered and produces a superior image even though it's got the smallest screen.

I don't know what your work situation is, but the majority of meetings in the corporate and academic worlds are not productive. One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was "If it's important that I attend the meeting then put me on the agenda." I personally do far more of my best creative thinking when walking or running outdoors than in meetings listening to people recite information that could have been distributed by email. So I say "no" to many meetings.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 02, 2020, 06:26:00 AM
A staff member whose daughter attends our nearest four-year college had told me that they planned to go virtual only after Thanksgiving.  Now she tells me that the school gave them less than 48 hours' notice that they'll be back on campus after all.  That doesn't seem like a good idea right now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on December 02, 2020, 07:08:21 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 01, 2020, 09:26:34 PM
We're thinking of going to the visitation for 5-10 minutes, paying our respects and then leaving (while wearing masks and social distancing).

Edit: Or, we may just go to the burial (outside vs. inside).

Yeah that seems like the best plan.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 02, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 02, 2020, 07:08:21 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 01, 2020, 09:26:34 PM
We're thinking of going to the visitation for 5-10 minutes, paying our respects and then leaving (while wearing masks and social distancing).

Edit: Or, we may just go to the burial (outside vs. inside).

Yeah that seems like the best plan.

More family members are exhibiting symptoms. We basically said f*ck it and didn't go.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: smallcleanrat on December 02, 2020, 09:36:05 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 02, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 02, 2020, 07:08:21 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 01, 2020, 09:26:34 PM
We're thinking of going to the visitation for 5-10 minutes, paying our respects and then leaving (while wearing masks and social distancing).

Edit: Or, we may just go to the burial (outside vs. inside).

Yeah that seems like the best plan.

More family members are exhibiting symptoms. We basically said f*ck it and didn't go.

Sounds like the smartest choice.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: OneMoreYear on December 02, 2020, 09:37:51 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 02, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 02, 2020, 07:08:21 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 01, 2020, 09:26:34 PM
We're thinking of going to the visitation for 5-10 minutes, paying our respects and then leaving (while wearing masks and social distancing).

Edit: Or, we may just go to the burial (outside vs. inside).

Yeah that seems like the best plan.

More family members are exhibiting symptoms. We basically said f*ck it and didn't go.

That seems like the best plan. Do you need a retroactive doctor's note?

To Whom it May Concern:
evil_physics_witchcraft and SO are excused from attending a funeral during a pandemic.
Dr. OMY

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on December 02, 2020, 09:44:02 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 02, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 01, 2020, 09:26:34 PM
We're thinking of going to the visitation for 5-10 minutes, paying our respects and then leaving (while wearing masks and social distancing).
Edit: Or, we may just go to the burial (outside vs. inside).
More family members are exhibiting symptoms. We basically said f*ck it and didn't go.
Wise choice!  I wish your family members a speedy and complete recovery (and hope they don't spread it to too many other people).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on December 02, 2020, 09:55:06 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 02, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 02, 2020, 07:08:21 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 01, 2020, 09:26:34 PM
We're thinking of going to the visitation for 5-10 minutes, paying our respects and then leaving (while wearing masks and social distancing).

Edit: Or, we may just go to the burial (outside vs. inside).

Yeah that seems like the best plan.

More family members are exhibiting symptoms. We basically said f*ck it and didn't go.

When I saw your post last night, I was reminded of the way funerals were handled during April and May. There was no viewing as the funeral homes were overwhelmed, and there were restrictions on the number of people who could go to the cemetery for the burial service. Even these people had to watch the burial from their cars because of the regulations in effect during those weeks/months.  Here most everyone knows at least one person who died of COVID, so we are extra careful about following the protocols.

I've found it useful to invoke my physician when people are trying to persuade me to socialize. All I have to say is that I'm following my physician's recommendations.

Stay safe, EPW. I hope your health-related issues will be resolved soon.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 02, 2020, 09:56:36 AM
Thank you everyone. I appreciate the people here who listen to me and let me vent.

Love the idea of a retroactive doc's note!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on December 02, 2020, 10:27:07 AM
Mr. Buster works in a biomedical research lab with an MD PhD student. We regularly wonder how she got in, as she exhibits some of the worst aspects of the a privileged, self-adsorbed life. So she went home for Thanksgiving. Home being a deep red state that essentially denies COVID is happening. She did get tested before she left (free through work), but just rolled her eyes when Mr. Buster asked if any of her family was getting tested as well. She's the type who would think only those "other people" would catch it.

Well, now she's in mandatory 14 day quarantine because her brother and his kids have tested positive after developing symptoms! I hope the brother and kids are ok, but l can only hope that the future MD learns something from this. Not holding my breath on that one. The rest of the lab just giggled when they heard this turn of events.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on December 02, 2020, 02:30:43 PM
If I had a nice sewing machine and a silk printing workshop, I'd be making snarky custom masks with saying like:
"Viruses. Don't. Get. Bored."
"If you think a mask is uncomfortable, you'll really hate a ventilator"
"It goes OVER your nose"
"If you can read this, you're standing too close"
"Better safe than dead"

Any other ideas for sayings?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: smallcleanrat on December 02, 2020, 02:44:24 PM
Quote from: mythbuster on December 02, 2020, 10:27:07 AM
Mr. Buster works in a biomedical research lab with an MD PhD student. We regularly wonder how she got in, as she exhibits some of the worst aspects of the a privileged, self-adsorbed life. So she went home for Thanksgiving. Home being a deep red state that essentially denies COVID is happening. She did get tested before she left (free through work), but just rolled her eyes when Mr. Buster asked if any of her family was getting tested as well. She's the type who would think only those "other people" would catch it.

Now I'm curious to read other examples.

Is she the type who does well in classes and exams, but *only* in classes and exams?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on December 03, 2020, 09:57:35 AM
This is a very moving article on how people in the NYC area coped with the pandemic when it was at its worst. Those were the days of people dying alone in hospitals because of the quarantines and the "drive-by funerals". These are also the faces of NYC, the faces that one sees in schools, colleges, the subway, everywhere.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york.html
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on December 03, 2020, 02:12:35 PM
SARS-CoV-2 likely in the USA in late November/early December 2019. (https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1785/6012472)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 04, 2020, 10:55:15 AM
Had a staff meeting today about the pandemic.  We're agreed that we will stay open, but will make some further adjustments to maintain a safe environment.  It's still a fluid situation out there.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on December 04, 2020, 11:59:32 AM
The latest from the CDC: wear masks indoors except at home.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/04/coronavirus-covid-live-updates-us/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on December 04, 2020, 06:51:00 PM
Quote from: apl68 on December 04, 2020, 10:55:15 AM
Had a staff meeting today about the pandemic.  We're agreed that we will stay open, but will make some further adjustments to maintain a safe environment.  It's still a fluid situation out there.
We've made an adjustment to our operating hours to the public as of Monday, opening an hour earlier and closing an hour earlier.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on December 07, 2020, 11:04:39 AM
My county is back to "shelter in place" orders.  Stay home at all times except for essential trips.  All restaurants are to-go only, stores have a limited capacity, and indoor gatherings are not allowed.

I'm curious to see what's still on the shelves at the grocery store.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on December 07, 2020, 11:14:47 AM
Quote from: spork on December 03, 2020, 02:12:35 PM
SARS-CoV-2 likely in the USA in late November/early December 2019. (https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1785/6012472)

Obviously I can't evaluate this, but some virologists I follow on Twitter were very skeptical of this study. The problem, apparently, is that some of their coronaviruses can create antibodies which can't always be distinguished from Covid 19 and there's a good chance they are just picking those up. They also pointed out that if it was really that widespread in the US, you would have seen higher death and hospitalization rates-but there was no sign of that.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on December 07, 2020, 11:19:50 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on December 07, 2020, 11:04:39 AM
My county is back to "shelter in place" orders.  Stay home at all times except for essential trips.  All restaurants are to-go only, stores have a limited capacity, and indoor gatherings are not allowed.

I'm curious to see what's still on the shelves at the grocery store.

I wish we could drop that terminology. Obviously there's no actual order to stay at home-stores are open and you can get food to go at restaurant. It's just bad messaging. It isn't important that people stay at home-it is important that they avoid going places and doing things that are risky.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on December 07, 2020, 07:28:00 PM
From WTOP Radio online--Why Mayor Bowser hasn't yet issued a stay-home order for DC:
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/12/dc-coronavirus-update-december-7/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/12/dc-coronavirus-update-december-7/)
There are breaks and ads so keep scrolling down the page to read the article.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on December 08, 2020, 06:47:44 PM
Gov. Hogan's announcement about covid-19 vaccine rollout for MD:
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/12/maryland-coronavirus-update-december-8/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/12/maryland-coronavirus-update-december-8/)
From WTOP Radio online (12/8/20)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on December 09, 2020, 10:44:33 AM
An adjunct colleague (who's also a dear friend) texted this morning to say her husband had a positive rapid test and was going for another to confirm.  She's in her 70s, with serious health issues, and has taught F2F all fall.  And now this.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 09, 2020, 12:43:49 PM
I went to a doctor's appointment today and had blood work done next door. In the blood place, one guy took off his mask to drink water and left it off. Just the two of us in the waiting room. About 30 seconds later, they called me back. I didn't want to start anything, but the whole thing really freaked me out.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on December 09, 2020, 02:30:33 PM
Yes, asking someone to put on their mask indoors is a bit like asking someone not to smoke inside. It could go wrong. It takes some judgment.

Tempting to carry a water pistol and squirt offenders in the face, but probably not a good idea.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on December 09, 2020, 03:06:11 PM
Quote from: downer on December 09, 2020, 02:30:33 PM
Yes, asking someone to put on their mask indoors is a bit like asking someone not to smoke inside. It could go wrong. It takes some judgment.

Tempting to carry a water pistol and squirt offenders in the face, but probably not a good idea.

Probably not a good idea.  I've contemplated if you could use one of those long-handled trash grabbers to snag folks by the nose if their mask isn't on their face properly.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on December 10, 2020, 05:32:30 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 09, 2020, 12:43:49 PM
I went to a doctor's appointment today and had blood work done next door. In the blood place, one guy took off his mask to drink water and left it off. Just the two of us in the waiting room. About 30 seconds later, they called me back. I didn't want to start anything, but the whole thing really freaked me out.

I would not have hesitated saying "Mask please" in a doctor's office, if he were withing 6 feet of me.  And I'm hoping he wasn't drinking from a water fountain, as they should be disconnected.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on December 10, 2020, 05:58:57 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on December 10, 2020, 05:32:30 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 09, 2020, 12:43:49 PM
I went to a doctor's appointment today and had blood work done next door. In the blood place, one guy took off his mask to drink water and left it off. Just the two of us in the waiting room. About 30 seconds later, they called me back. I didn't want to start anything, but the whole thing really freaked me out.

I would not have hesitated saying "Mask please" in a doctor's office, if he were withing 6 feet of me.  And I'm hoping he wasn't drinking from a water fountain, as they should be disconnected.

Meh. That's one of those things where the risk is probably really small.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 10, 2020, 07:17:37 AM
The number of active cases is our county is down, but we've had three more deaths in recent days.  Not people close to me, but people close to some who I know.

Our water fountains, and others around town, have been off for most of the year now.  Strange to think that it's been most of a year now since I've done something as mundane as drink from a water fountain.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Harlow2 on December 10, 2020, 08:10:56 AM
Not liking the new information on the Pfizer vaccine and allergies. I worry that I'll have to wait even longer though I'm in an elevated risk group and CDC category 2.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 10, 2020, 10:25:44 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on December 10, 2020, 05:32:30 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 09, 2020, 12:43:49 PM
I went to a doctor's appointment today and had blood work done next door. In the blood place, one guy took off his mask to drink water and left it off. Just the two of us in the waiting room. About 30 seconds later, they called me back. I didn't want to start anything, but the whole thing really freaked me out.

I would not have hesitated saying "Mask please" in a doctor's office, if he were withing 6 feet of me.  And I'm hoping he wasn't drinking from a water fountain, as they should be disconnected.

It was a water cooler with cups. I just got the hell out of there.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on December 10, 2020, 10:32:21 AM
Quote from: Harlow2 on December 10, 2020, 08:10:56 AM
Not liking the new information on the Pfizer vaccine and allergies. I worry that I'll have to wait even longer though I'm in an elevated risk group and CDC category 2.
There'll be more data on this in the coming weeks -- but the thing to keep in mind is that we'll see for sure a few people having adverse reactions, including death, shortly after getting the vaccine... the question is whether that's more likely to happen than absent a vaccine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 10, 2020, 11:58:15 AM
Quote from: pigou on December 10, 2020, 10:32:21 AM
Quote from: Harlow2 on December 10, 2020, 08:10:56 AM
Not liking the new information on the Pfizer vaccine and allergies. I worry that I'll have to wait even longer though I'm in an elevated risk group and CDC category 2.
There'll be more data on this in the coming weeks -- but the thing to keep in mind is that we'll see for sure a few people having adverse reactions, including death, shortly after getting the vaccine... the question is whether that's more likely to happen than absent a vaccine.

And as the number of people vaccinated grows, simple correlation will inevitably lead to people dying, getting sick, having all their hair fall out, turning orange, etc. shortly after vaccination purely by coincidence.  Which will not stop examples of each of these correlations appearing in the mainstream media, to say nothing of what we'll see in "alternate" outlets and on Facebook.

The vaccines that go into service in western nations are going to have been very, very extensively tested.  Let's all remain calm.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on December 10, 2020, 05:42:57 PM
Hawaii seems to be the only state enforcing restrictions. Go, Hawaii! I wish other states would do the same.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/12/states-coronavirus-travel-restrictions-quarantine-hawaii/617321/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on December 11, 2020, 12:52:49 PM
Maryland and Virginia have new restrictions starting Monday:
https://wtop.com/local/2020/12/upcoming-coronavirus-restrictions-in-maryland-virginia/ (https://wtop.com/local/2020/12/upcoming-coronavirus-restrictions-in-maryland-virginia/)
From WTOP Radio online (12/11/20)

Also, massive service cuts to Metro rail services are on the horizon:
https://wtop.com/tracking-metro-24-7/2020/12/metros-budget-cut-a-step-closer-to-approval/ (https://wtop.com/tracking-metro-24-7/2020/12/metros-budget-cut-a-step-closer-to-approval/)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on December 12, 2020, 02:55:51 AM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on December 11, 2020, 12:52:49 PM
Maryland and Virginia have new restrictions starting Monday:
https://wtop.com/local/2020/12/upcoming-coronavirus-restrictions-in-maryland-virginia/ (https://wtop.com/local/2020/12/upcoming-coronavirus-restrictions-in-maryland-virginia/)
From WTOP Radio online (12/11/20)

Also, massive service cuts to Metro rail services are on the horizon:
https://wtop.com/tracking-metro-24-7/2020/12/metros-budget-cut-a-step-closer-to-approval/ (https://wtop.com/tracking-metro-24-7/2020/12/metros-budget-cut-a-step-closer-to-approval/)

My brother informed me that commuter rail service for the Boston metro area has been cut by 50%, partly because so many MBTA employees have Covid-19 and are not at work. Also ridership is only about 13% of normal.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on December 12, 2020, 05:16:38 AM
My (dumbass) BIL has covid, is recovering, and his physician says he does not need to retest.  He and my sister (who tested negative which is good or otherwise BIL would be dead), want to be around our 92 year old Mother at Christmas; she is with me.  I think he should be retested and not be near my mother until he tests negative.  Thoughts, please.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: onthefringe on December 12, 2020, 05:49:12 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on December 12, 2020, 05:16:38 AM
My (dumbass) BIL has covid, is recovering, and his physician says he does not need to retest.  He and my sister (who tested negative which is good or otherwise BIL would be dead), want to be around our 92 year old Mother at Christmas; she is with me.  I think he should be retested and not be near my mother until he tests negative.  Thoughts, please.

It's possible for people to test positive for a long time after recovery without being infective, so many places aren't requiring a negative test. People are presumed negative if they quarantine for 10 days after the positive test and have no fever and other symptoms are resolving.

Your sister should quarantine for 14 days after her last close contact with your BIL, regardless of her testing status. (So for up to 24 days after his positive test if they aren't isolating from one another at home).

In my world, they should not be visiting your 92 year old grandmother regardless, but especially since your sister tested negative which means she could still catch it before Christmas and be an asymptomatic carrier.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on December 12, 2020, 08:41:10 AM
Quote from: onthefringe on December 12, 2020, 05:49:12 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on December 12, 2020, 05:16:38 AM
My (dumbass) BIL has covid, is recovering, and his physician says he does not need to retest.  He and my sister (who tested negative which is good or otherwise BIL would be dead), want to be around our 92 year old Mother at Christmas; she is with me.  I think he should be retested and not be near my mother until he tests negative.  Thoughts, please.

It's possible for people to test positive for a long time after recovery without being infective, so many places aren't requiring a negative test. People are presumed negative if they quarantine for 10 days after the positive test and have no fever and other symptoms are resolving.

Your sister should quarantine for 14 days after her last close contact with your BIL, regardless of her testing status. (So for up to 24 days after his positive test if they aren't isolating from one another at home).


The CDC guidelines now are that that a person should quarantine for ten days after symptoms first appear and 24 hours after fever as long as other symptoms are improving. So whenever that date is for him-the guidance would be that she should isolate for 14 days after that. Presumably that would end before Christmas. If your sister has been staying home and plans to keep staying home till Christmas, that would actually be much lower risk for them to visit than if your brother in law hadn't ever tested positive.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on December 13, 2020, 01:53:44 AM
College students are super-spreaders:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/12/us/covid-colleges-nursing-homes.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/12/us/covid-colleges-nursing-homes.html).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on December 13, 2020, 08:39:28 AM
Quote from: spork on December 13, 2020, 01:53:44 AM
College students are super-spreaders:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/12/us/covid-colleges-nursing-homes.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/12/us/covid-colleges-nursing-homes.html).

People aren't super spreaders. You have super spreading events. And groups of people certainly can't be super spreaders. I've been persuaded it is really important to avoid terminology that puts blame on people or groups of people.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on December 13, 2020, 09:06:40 AM
QuotePeople aren't super spreaders

Was Typhoid Mary a Super Spreader?

I think that she was so I disagree that people can not be super spreaders. 
A pilot downing 5 planes is an Ace.  What should it take to become a Super Spreader?
Contaminate one other, you are a Spreader
How many to become an Ace?  How many more to become a Super Spreader (or is Ace sufficient)?

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Aster on December 13, 2020, 06:44:54 PM
One of my concerned family members forwarded me "documentation" purporting that the new covid vaccine will give you AIDS if you take it.

Oh, and the flu vaccine is also a scam created by Big Pharma.

My concerned family member also wants me to ship him some hydroxychloroquine. Because he was told by "fellow veteran health practitioners" that it was the only truly effective treatment for covid.

It was a very interesting telephone conversation.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on December 14, 2020, 04:23:26 AM
Quote from: clean on December 13, 2020, 09:06:40 AM
QuotePeople aren't super spreaders

Was Typhoid Mary a Super Spreader?

I think that she was so I disagree that people can not be super spreaders. 


Mary Mallon is a good example of how stigmatization is a bad idea and is generally counter-effective. The evidence suggests that the reason she became known and quarantined was because she was an Irish Catholic woman. She kept cooking because she didn't have any other options and nobody seems to have considered that if you wanted her not to cook or adopt better hand washing practices (which weren't common at the time) you might need to  provide some alternative source of employment by which she could survive or actually try to understand her, instead of forcibly taking various medical samples against her will and confining her.

So, in that way, I think she's actually a good example of the way we have completely failed to deal with the economic and social issues surrounding Covid. Moralistic posturing is easier and more fun, even if it won't help.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on December 14, 2020, 06:41:05 AM
Quote from: Aster on December 13, 2020, 06:44:54 PM
One of my concerned family members forwarded me "documentation" purporting that the new covid vaccine will give you AIDS if you take it.

Oh, and the flu vaccine is also a scam created by Big Pharma.

My concerned family member also wants me to ship him some hydroxychloroquine. Because he was told by "fellow veteran health practitioners" that it was the only truly effective treatment for covid.

It was a very interesting telephone conversation.

https://xkcd.com/2397/
The hidden text is also great on this one (hover mouse over to see)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on December 14, 2020, 08:30:58 AM
Caracal has good points about Mary Mallon. Nowadays she would be described as an asymptomatic carrier or reservoir of disease. Her case reached fame just as germ theory was becoming widely accepted, but we also lacked knowledge of modes of transmission etc. Handwashing before surgery was still a radical concept. Compound that with prejudice against her religion ans ethnicity, and she ends up spending her life in jail. Nowadays, she would simply be treated with appropriate antibiotics.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 14, 2020, 08:34:59 AM
I was in Little Rock on Friday and Saturday.  Crowds weren't that large by holiday-season standards, but the mercantiles weren't exactly ghost towns either.  Rates of mask compliance were very high (Although I did see a couple of people here and there who were faking it--wearing a mask without actually covering everything).  Social distancing was generally being practiced as well.

I did encounter a different form of health hazard.  In one mall I walked into the long, winding hallway that led back to the mall's public restrooms, and immediately ran into a funk that I'm surprised didn't leave some people on the floor in a swoon.  Evidently somebody, or several somebodies, had been having a bad time back in there.  The corridor was just off the food court, too.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Aster on December 14, 2020, 09:58:15 AM
Mall bathrooms. That's bravery even in normal times.

And the mall bathrooms servicing a Food Court? Sometimes it's worse than a truck stop.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: RatGuy on December 14, 2020, 12:27:47 PM
I've been known to get sinus infections around this time of year, for all the normal reasons people get sinus infections.

I go to the faculty clinic for treatment (and to rule out strep). I take a COVID test to enter the building. Fine, it's negative. Nurse does the pre-exam, I list my symptoms and say "it's a sinus infection, but I'd like to make sure it's not strep." When the doctor comes in, she says "It says here that you think you have a sinus infection. Well, it's probably COVID."

"I just took a test. Negative. I get sinus infections this time of year."

"A negative test doesn't mean much. Your symptoms of congestion and sore throat point to COVID."

"OK, but I've got no fever, cough, fatigue, or any of those other things. I'm pretty familiar with how my body does sinus infections."

"I'm pretty sure it's COVID, but I guess I'll examine you." She looks briefly in my ears, and even more briefly in my throat. "Yeah, it's COVID." Then she enters my info into the COVID protocol for the university, tells me to take plenty of fluids and get rest. Won't give me antibiotics because "They don't help covid."

So my covid caseworker notifies my department chair, who then emails me to say "You can't come to campus." I've since been tested again (negative) and been allowed back after the 10 day period. But those nasal swabs are bad in the best of times -- guess how it feels with a swollen and tender sinus?

There's a reason that zero cases have been traced to classrooms this semester, but it also means I'm still dealing with this dang sinus infection.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on December 14, 2020, 12:34:36 PM
Sorry that happened, those are NO fun, and yes, only Abx can help.

Ding-bat nurse.

I've worked with some very good ones, but there are definitely blinkered, see-what-you-want-to, don't-see-what-the-real-issues-are ones as well.

Can you find an alternative health care place and get an Rx there?

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 14, 2020, 01:19:54 PM
Just learned that a staff member's husband has tested positive.  He was exposed to somebody at work or someplace.  Now that staff member will be out for a week.

She is a back-office worker who has kept everybody else shooed out of her work area.  So it's unlikely that she has had recent close contact with anybody else on staff.  I'm still trying to determine for sure.  At any rate, the hysteria among the staff is headed up once again.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 14, 2020, 03:28:55 PM
My mother wants the entire family to get together, in a restaurant, for Christmas.

We are in a place where cases are jumping up, up, up! Not gonna happen.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 14, 2020, 03:33:19 PM
Quote from: RatGuy on December 14, 2020, 12:27:47 PM
I've been known to get sinus infections around this time of year, for all the normal reasons people get sinus infections.

I go to the faculty clinic for treatment (and to rule out strep). I take a COVID test to enter the building. Fine, it's negative. Nurse does the pre-exam, I list my symptoms and say "it's a sinus infection, but I'd like to make sure it's not strep." When the doctor comes in, she says "It says here that you think you have a sinus infection. Well, it's probably COVID."

"I just took a test. Negative. I get sinus infections this time of year."

"A negative test doesn't mean much. Your symptoms of congestion and sore throat point to COVID."

"OK, but I've got no fever, cough, fatigue, or any of those other things. I'm pretty familiar with how my body does sinus infections."

"I'm pretty sure it's COVID, but I guess I'll examine you." She looks briefly in my ears, and even more briefly in my throat. "Yeah, it's COVID." Then she enters my info into the COVID protocol for the university, tells me to take plenty of fluids and get rest. Won't give me antibiotics because "They don't help covid."

So my covid caseworker notifies my department chair, who then emails me to say "You can't come to campus." I've since been tested again (negative) and been allowed back after the 10 day period. But those nasal swabs are bad in the best of times -- guess how it feels with a swollen and tender sinus?

There's a reason that zero cases have been traced to classrooms this semester, but it also means I'm still dealing with this dang sinus infection.

Wow! Sorry you went through that. Can you lodge a complaint?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on December 14, 2020, 04:58:04 PM
Interesting-- what would you all do in this sort of circumstances?   How could one go about forcing the doc/ nurse to give you the swab culture test for an actual sinus infection, so you could get antibiotics?   This would be especially true for one who has a history of getting such infections, which should of course also be in one's record?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on December 15, 2020, 02:56:24 AM
IF they've received the record (since it's usually the desk assistants' job to download that and print it, if needed: if they're on a skeleton crew, there might not BE a desk assistant in at all times, or they might be backed up--but it's still on the doc to find it and read it, really....) and IF they've read it (I had to draw things in my mom's hx to the MD's attention that they should have seen right away, often), yes.

One has to approach these assumptions with a carefully worded, nonchalantly voiced question so as not to come across as judgmental, yet get the point across. 

Not that one doesn't, normally, anyway, but in abnormal times, especially so.

But all that said, yes, I'd explore those options further as well.

   <<....Grumbling on your behalf...>>

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on December 15, 2020, 08:07:35 AM
Quote from: RatGuy on December 14, 2020, 12:27:47 PM
I've been known to get sinus infections around this time of year, for all the normal reasons people get sinus infections.

I go to the faculty clinic for treatment (and to rule out strep). I take a COVID test to enter the building. Fine, it's negative. Nurse does the pre-exam, I list my symptoms and say "it's a sinus infection, but I'd like to make sure it's not strep." When the doctor comes in, she says "It says here that you think you have a sinus infection. Well, it's probably COVID."

"I just took a test. Negative. I get sinus infections this time of year."

"A negative test doesn't mean much. Your symptoms of congestion and sore throat point to COVID."

"OK, but I've got no fever, cough, fatigue, or any of those other things. I'm pretty familiar with how my body does sinus infections."

"I'm pretty sure it's COVID, but I guess I'll examine you." She looks briefly in my ears, and even more briefly in my throat. "Yeah, it's COVID." Then she enters my info into the COVID protocol for the university, tells me to take plenty of fluids and get rest. Won't give me antibiotics because "They don't help covid."

So my covid caseworker notifies my department chair, who then emails me to say "You can't come to campus." I've since been tested again (negative) and been allowed back after the 10 day period. But those nasal swabs are bad in the best of times -- guess how it feels with a swollen and tender sinus?

There's a reason that zero cases have been traced to classrooms this semester, but it also means I'm still dealing with this dang sinus infection.

Ugh, its maddening when the people who are supposed to be the professionals clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Over the last 3 months, my wife has taken there COVID tests for congestion/sore throat and I've taken one, and they've all been negative. Cleared up quickly or didn't progress to anything else. I can understand the argument for keeping you away from school out of an abundance of caution, but there's just no reason to think someone with those symptoms and a negative test is likely to have Covid.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 15, 2020, 09:40:19 AM
Contact tracing among our library staff has indicated that none of us have been in close contact in recent days with the staff member whose husband has tested positive.  It looks like we'll be able to remain in operation--minus the quarantined staff member, of course.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on December 15, 2020, 05:10:03 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 14, 2020, 04:58:04 PM
Interesting-- what would you all do in this sort of circumstances?   How could one go about forcing the doc/ nurse to give you the swab culture test for an actual sinus infection, so you could get antibiotics?   This would be especially true for one who has a history of getting such infections, which should of course also be in one's record?
"Look, I have a PhD and I'm telling you, this is a sinus infection. I need you to do your job and run this swab, and I'm not leaving until you do it."

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and sounding like an entitled ass is a good way to get across that you'll cause them more work and annoyance if you don't get what you want, so that it's just easier on them to do the swab and get it over with.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on December 16, 2020, 06:13:38 AM
Quote from: pigou on December 15, 2020, 05:10:03 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 14, 2020, 04:58:04 PM
Interesting-- what would you all do in this sort of circumstances?   How could one go about forcing the doc/ nurse to give you the swab culture test for an actual sinus infection, so you could get antibiotics?   This would be especially true for one who has a history of getting such infections, which should of course also be in one's record?
"Look, I have a PhD and I'm telling you, this is a sinus infection. I need you to do your job and run this swab, and I'm not leaving until you do it."

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and sounding like an entitled ass is a good way to get across that you'll cause them more work and annoyance if you don't get what you want, so that it's just easier on them to do the swab and get it over with.

I'm Dr. Jane Smith; give me the damn test (channeling Dr. Jill Biden).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on December 20, 2020, 04:10:36 PM
My brother's wife tested positive for coronavirus. The family is now quarantined, trying to minimize contact with each other. At my mother's retirement home, one resident tested positive on Friday. Now there are a total of three confirmed cases and several other people are symptomatic. All residents and employees are getting tested tomorrow.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on December 21, 2020, 05:47:34 AM
Quote from: spork on December 20, 2020, 04:10:36 PM
My brother's wife tested positive for coronavirus. The family is now quarantined, trying to minimize contact with each other. At my mother's retirement home, one resident tested positive on Friday. Now there are a total of three confirmed cases and several other people are symptomatic. All residents and employees are getting tested tomorrow.

Sounds similar to my family.  Dumbass brother in law was infected but sister took stringent measures and has tested negative twice.  Mother's retirement community (independent living but with lots of frail residents) has been restricting visitors since last spring and became even stricter the last few months.  They went into lockdown, closed the dining room, etc., after a couple who attended a funeral (see the irony) tested positive, and tested all residents, finding one more positive person.  After two weeks of lockdown, dining room now open and residents can mingle.  Mother is now with me in Winter Quarters until the New Year, for a change of scenery.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 22, 2020, 10:27:31 AM
Our City Council continues to meet each month in the library's community room.  They're the only ones who've been using it since March.  The room doesn't have enough room for social distancing for everybody at those meetings, what with the Council itself, the Mayor, all the city department heads, the secretary, the local news reporter, and any spectators.  I've been having this nightmare scenario of everybody ending up quarantined in one fell swoop.

I talked it over with the Mayor, and we came up with an alternative plan that would let them all spread out in the main area of the building (This would be in the evening, when we didn't have regular patrons around).  She was concerned about making sure that the annual budget passed at this meeting, and decided not to add to the challenges by changing up the venue after all.

So, last night they held the meeting as usual.  Masked--the Mayor has been setting a good example there--but not socially distanced.  Once again I'm hoping that a City Council meeting doesn't turn out to be a super-spreading event.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on December 22, 2020, 12:17:20 PM
The hamartia of the powerful--and it is worse with those who only have tiny bits of power....

Sorry you're having to deal with a bunch of kiddies who are forcing you to be the adult in the room.

And will have to deal with the fallout, if any occurs, as well.

Grrrrrrr.....

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 22, 2020, 12:28:58 PM
I've never been more glad that as city librarian I'm not important enough to be required to be at all Council meetings!

We've been keeping in touch with the staff member whose husband tested positive.  He's getting ready to go back to work now, but she and their two grown daughters who are living with them (One still in college) have now all tested positive.  Their symptoms have been mild.  They've found that sitting out in the sun in the mild weather we've been having yesterday and today has made them feel better.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 22, 2020, 01:29:26 PM
The last week or so we've had a lot of stories about libraries in the state paper.  A city council member in a hard-hit city has made noises about cutting their library's budget if they don't open more fully.  Another librarian has gotten into trouble for trying to work remotely--as in from three states away.  To me that does sound like a little too much of an ask.  And the largest public library in the state has lost $160,000 in parking lot revenue this year, thanks to fewer people coming in since March (I thought the lot looked awfully sparse when I last visited). 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on December 23, 2020, 09:38:29 AM
There are now a dozen confirmed coronavirus cases at my mother's retirement home. One of them is my mother. She has had a sore throat since the weekend but no cough, fever, or other symptoms. All the other residents who tested positive also have only mild symptoms.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on December 23, 2020, 10:11:19 AM
I am so sorry Spork!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on December 23, 2020, 10:20:42 AM
Quote from: spork on December 23, 2020, 09:38:29 AM
There are now a dozen confirmed coronavirus cases at my mother's retirement home. One of them is my mother. She has had a sore throat since the weekend but no cough, fever, or other symptoms. All the other residents who tested positive also have only mild symptoms.

Oh, no.

Thinking of you both.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morden on December 23, 2020, 11:35:07 AM
I am so sorry Spork.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 23, 2020, 11:55:39 AM
Quote from: spork on December 23, 2020, 09:38:29 AM
There are now a dozen confirmed coronavirus cases at my mother's retirement home. One of them is my mother. She has had a sore throat since the weekend but no cough, fever, or other symptoms. All the other residents who tested positive also have only mild symptoms.

I'm sorry to hear that, spork.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 23, 2020, 12:50:52 PM
Sorry to hear that, spork.  Glad to hear that so far the symptoms have been mild.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 23, 2020, 12:54:13 PM
Quote from: apl68 on December 22, 2020, 01:29:26 PM
The last week or so we've had a lot of stories about libraries in the state paper.  A city council member in a hard-hit city has made noises about cutting their library's budget if they don't open more fully.

And the cuts have been voted down.  Apparently the rest of their city council didn't see things that member's way.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on December 23, 2020, 02:50:11 PM
Quote from: spork on December 23, 2020, 09:38:29 AM
There are now a dozen confirmed coronavirus cases at my mother's retirement home. One of them is my mother. She has had a sore throat since the weekend but no cough, fever, or other symptoms. All the other residents who tested positive also have only mild symptoms.

Keeping your mother and her housemates in my thoughts. Stay strong.

AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on December 23, 2020, 07:24:59 PM
From WTOP Radio online: Indoor dining bans are upheld by Maryland court
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/12/dining-bans-in-maryland-lawsuit-outcome/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/12/dining-bans-in-maryland-lawsuit-outcome/)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on December 23, 2020, 07:26:32 PM
I'm so sorry, spork.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Harlow2 on December 23, 2020, 08:05:17 PM
Spork, thinking about your mom and you both.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on December 24, 2020, 06:01:43 AM
Spork.....Is it independent living or does it include an assisted living/nursing home component?  Regardless, I am so so sorry and relieved that her symptoms are mild, though that does not prevent anxiety on your part.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on December 24, 2020, 06:49:56 AM
Sending good thoughts from here, too, to Spork and mom.

My good friend/colleague with COPD isn't doing well with her case.  She's still at home at the moment but feeling pretty bad.  Her pulmonologist is monitoring her, but at the moment COVID/ICU beds in St. Louis are hard to come by.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on December 24, 2020, 07:25:36 AM
Spork, sorry to hear about your mother. I'm assuming that she's probably not allowed to have any visitors, which must be doubly difficult, more so because of the not-being-able-to-visit during the holidays.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on December 24, 2020, 08:19:06 AM
Quote from: spork on December 23, 2020, 09:38:29 AM
There are now a dozen confirmed coronavirus cases at my mother's retirement home. One of them is my mother. She has had a sore throat since the weekend but no cough, fever, or other symptoms. All the other residents who tested positive also have only mild symptoms.

Sorry, spork.  Hope it's some comfort to you that she doesn't have other symptoms.  Wishing all the best for her, the other residents, and you.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: notmycircus on December 24, 2020, 09:23:08 AM
Spork, I hope your mom is well soon.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on December 24, 2020, 10:33:01 AM
Thanks everyone. My mother's symptoms haven't changed; just a sore throat and runny nose. According to the nurse who examined her, her lungs are clear and she doesn't have a fever. There are now 32 residents and 7 employees who tested positive. This is technically an independent living facility, but it's a single building that contains one-bedroom apartments and several common areas (which haven't been in use for several months).

My sister-in-law is also doing ok with only mild symptoms. My brother has zero symptoms. He hasn't been tested since he's asymptomatic. They are quarantining at home.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on December 24, 2020, 12:10:53 PM
Continuing good wishes to your mom, Spork.

I know this virus is very dangerous to many and nobody should underestimate it. I have a friend in her 80s who is living in an assisted-living facility, and when they tested everyone, they found that a number of residents had contracted the virus, including my friend. She never had a single symptom!  It is several months out and she sailed through it. Of course it could have been a misdiagnosis, but several others did have symptoms, some serious, though I believe they didn't lose anyone. Still, it was heartening to learn that some elderly people sometimes do come through it without major trouble. We need all the good news we can get!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: reener06 on December 24, 2020, 04:33:30 PM
FIL woke feeling dizzy and then coffee tasted like water, and he's quite fatigued. It took them all day to tell us, then we begged them to get a taste. He's angry that MIL told us and is reluctant to get the test but supposedly is going tomorrow.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Ruralguy on December 24, 2020, 05:49:58 PM
I can't easily get tested in my area. I was thinking of buying a couple of at homes as long as they are accurate and not requiring a script. I'm not symptomatic or been exposed...just thinking ahead.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on December 24, 2020, 06:28:35 PM
Our state had almost 8,000 confirmed cases today. I wonder how many are really out there...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on December 26, 2020, 12:28:27 PM
My mother is doing ok; today she feels slightly better than she did yesterday. Her symptoms are still limited to a runny nose and sore throat. Since symptom onset was a full week ago, I think she is through the worst of it and should recuperate. I do not know what the case count is now at her retirement home, but interaction between employees and residents is being ratcheted down, in addition to all residents remaining in their apartments with their doors closed. For example, dinners are now limited to sandwiches instead of hot meals, which means fewer employees spending less time in the kitchen.

As for my brother's household, one person with symptoms tested negative, so apparently it's just a typical head cold. His wife's symptoms have not worsened and are still mild.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on December 26, 2020, 12:54:20 PM
Thanks for the update about your mom!  Hope she's better soon.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on December 27, 2020, 06:17:37 AM
spork....  So glad about your mom!!!  My mother's retirement community is now serving in the dining room, after being in lockdown because of 3 covid cases.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on December 27, 2020, 10:54:31 AM
I haven't heard from my friend, and I'm worried:  I texted her on Christmas eve and again this morning, with no replies.  I don't know her husband or his phone number (they're not married, so I'm not even sure of his last name), and her grown sons live across the country.  It probably sounds weird, but we're "work friends" so I don't know other ways to find out about her.

(This is another reason why, after a colleague/work friend died suddenly a couple of years ago, I made up a list for ALHS/our girls, should something similar happen to me--a couple of good work friends to call, name and cell number for my chair, HR contacts, etc.)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pigou on December 27, 2020, 01:36:59 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 24, 2020, 05:49:58 PM
I can't easily get tested in my area. I was thinking of buying a couple of at homes as long as they are accurate and not requiring a script. I'm not symptomatic or been exposed...just thinking ahead.
I've had good experiences with this one. Free if you have self-reported symptoms: https://www.pixel.labcorp.com/at-home-test-kits/covid-19-test-home-collection-kit

You can't (and shouldn't) get a bunch of kits in advance. But their turnaround is very quick: I've gotten mine delivered the day after ordering and it goes back to them via overnight shipping. It's a proper PCR test, too.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on December 27, 2020, 04:17:03 PM
Quote from: AmLitHist on December 27, 2020, 10:54:31 AM
I haven't heard from my friend, and I'm worried:  I texted her on Christmas eve and again this morning, with no replies.  I don't know her husband or his phone number (they're not married, so I'm not even sure of his last name), and her grown sons live across the country.  It probably sounds weird, but we're "work friends" so I don't know other ways to find out about her.

(This is another reason why, after a colleague/work friend died suddenly a couple of years ago, I made up a list for ALHS/our girls, should something similar happen to me--a couple of good work friends to call, name and cell number for my chair, HR contacts, etc.)

On this or another thread, awhile back, I mentioned that at one point a friend I was trying to contact had been so long in replying that I looked up her church website, to be sure she wasn't on the prayer list....thankfully, she was not and I heard from her a couple days later.

But yes. in another instance, I'd apparently emailed someone a few days before they died and didn't know until a month later, after I'd emailed again, that they were gone: the people taking care of their things found my email and very kindly let me know.

I hope you can reach your friend soon. Keep us posted.

M.   
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 28, 2020, 07:48:20 AM
We've had little word from our sick staff member and her family.  They do seem to be doing better.  I hope they were able to have a good Christmas Day.

Running on a skeleton staff today, but we don't anticipate a high level of business on a gloomy day right after Christmas.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on December 28, 2020, 06:57:56 PM
We're back to curbside service at the library. There were patrons who hadn't heard about the mayor's latest health directive so it was 1st time hearing about it from us library staff. These are folks who don't own a computer.
It's been nice having the branch to ourselves--we can move around more freely. Fewer interruptions while shelving and discharging library materials too!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on December 29, 2020, 02:42:24 PM
Situation at my brother's household has changed. His wife has recovered fully and will be returning to work soon. The three other people in the house now have symptoms resembling the flu plus, for one person, loss of taste, who got a positive test result yesterday. The other two, one of which is my brother, are waiting for test results but are most likely positive for Covid-19.

My mother is status quo and likely on the path to a full recovery.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on December 30, 2020, 05:44:42 AM
Quote from: spork on December 29, 2020, 02:42:24 PM
Situation at my brother's household has changed. His wife has recovered fully and will be returning to work soon. The three other people in the house now have symptoms resembling the flu plus, for one person, loss of taste, who got a positive test result yesterday. The other two, one of which is my brother, are waiting for test results but are most likely positive for Covid-19.

My mother is status quo and likely on the path to a full recovery.

I am sorry.  I'm still struggling (emotionally) with/about BIL who had covid and will continue to interact with others.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 30, 2020, 07:55:53 AM
Our sick staff member has been released to return to work in one week.  She's feeling much better.

Another staff member is having problems, but they seem not to be COVID-related.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on December 30, 2020, 09:55:06 AM
From WTOP Radio online: Anne Arundel Co., MD executive has an update on indoor dining
https://wtop.com/anne-arundel-county/2020/12/anne-arundel-co-executive-replaces-executive-order-that-would-have-banned-indoor-dining/ (https://wtop.com/anne-arundel-county/2020/12/anne-arundel-co-executive-replaces-executive-order-that-would-have-banned-indoor-dining/)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on December 31, 2020, 06:47:42 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on December 30, 2020, 05:44:42 AM
Quote from: spork on December 29, 2020, 02:42:24 PM
Situation at my brother's household has changed. His wife has recovered fully and will be returning to work soon. The three other people in the house now have symptoms resembling the flu plus, for one person, loss of taste, who got a positive test result yesterday. The other two, one of which is my brother, are waiting for test results but are most likely positive for Covid-19.

My mother is status quo and likely on the path to a full recovery.

I am sorry.  I'm still struggling (emotionally) with/about BIL who had covid and will continue to interact with others.

He should be fine by now right? My understanding is that if you're recovered and more than a ten days from illness onset, you don't need to quarantine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 31, 2020, 10:23:03 AM
The vaccinations at local nursing homes were on the front page of our local weekly newspaper.

The annual Year in Review section looking over the year's events wasn't a particularly happy one.  It covered such developments as the sudden death of our long-time Mayor and the special election for a new one, assorted COVID-related stuff, the high school seniors' drive-by graduation event, and a new solar farm project that will hopefully replace some of our lost property tax revenue.  And the mysterious boom that woke people up some months ago and has never been explained.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on December 31, 2020, 11:36:32 AM
Quote from: apl68 on December 31, 2020, 10:23:03 AM
The annual Year in Review section looking over the year's events wasn't a particularly happy one.

I recommend Dave Barry's Year in Review (https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2020/12/27/dave-barrys-year-review-2020/?arc404=true) instead.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on December 31, 2020, 11:50:31 AM
Quote from: apl68 on December 31, 2020, 10:23:03 AM
The vaccinations at local nursing homes were on the front page of our local weekly newspaper.

The annual Year in Review section looking over the year's events wasn't a particularly happy one.  It covered such developments as the sudden death of our long-time Mayor and the special election for a new one, assorted COVID-related stuff, the high school seniors' drive-by graduation event, and a new solar farm project that will hopefully replace some of our lost property tax revenue.  And the mysterious boom that woke people up some months ago and has never been explained.

What was the date of the "boom that woke people up"?

I'm recalling a meteor sometime a bit ago, and maybe a supersonic airplane that both made big noises at some point in the not-so-distant past, but can't recall the dates or where they were to search for them.

We just had a tiny earth temblor a while back, nothing else exciting, and the sky was too overcast to see the recent conjunctions of the planets.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 31, 2020, 12:52:06 PM
It was in March.  The only earthquake activity that day was several states to the west.  There don't seem to have been any meteorites over North America around that time either.  The boom is still a mystery.

I've heard people talking about another mysterious boom waking them up earlier this week.  I didn't hear it.  Not sure whether anybody heard it right here in town, though.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on January 01, 2021, 06:35:07 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 31, 2020, 06:47:42 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on December 30, 2020, 05:44:42 AM
Quote from: spork on December 29, 2020, 02:42:24 PM
Situation at my brother's household has changed. His wife has recovered fully and will be returning to work soon. The three other people in the house now have symptoms resembling the flu plus, for one person, loss of taste, who got a positive test result yesterday. The other two, one of which is my brother, are waiting for test results but are most likely positive for Covid-19.

My mother is status quo and likely on the path to a full recovery.

I am sorry.  I'm still struggling (emotionally) with/about BIL who had covid and will continue to interact with others.

He should be fine by now right? My understanding is that if you're recovered and more than a ten days from illness onset, you don't need to quarantine.

Yes, he has recovered and doesn't need to quarantine.  It's his attitude about the whole thing, and his every intention to return to engaging socially.  It's as if, now that he's had it, he'll be fine doing whatever he wants to do, even though there is a slight chance he could get it again.  And of course......my sister, who fortunately, took the very wise precaution of sending him to the guest room immediately upon his return from his ill fated jaunt, could somehow be exposed.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on January 01, 2021, 08:11:20 AM
ALHS went to the hospital earlier this week for a routine lab procedure.  He said the lobby was lined up with people clear down the hall connecting to the doctors' building where he went in.  As the nurse did his COVID screening, she asked if he was there for a COVID vaccine.  Huh?  She said they'd gotten their vaccines and all the building personnel in the hospital and the doctors' offices had gotten their shots, so they opened it up to the public--one line for people who were walk-ins, and another for those who'd checked in and requested one on the "My Chart" online system.

He declined, partly because there's still a bit of leeriness on both our parts about the safety and possible reactions, but mainly because he's been on daily IV antibiotics since November 3, and he's avoiding anything that could possibly screw that up. My first reaction when he told me was to call my internist and get in line, but I think I'm going to wait, especially since I'm OK with staying at home and also since I don't have to go back to work until August at the earliest. It also kind of feels like line-jumping at this stage of things. Across the river, there are daily news reports about medical people unable to get the vaccine--but that's got more to do with state politics/leadership than with me getting a shot.

Still, the whole, "do you want a COVID shot?" was pretty unexpected.  (We, and the hospital, are in Illinois, metro St. Louis.)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on January 01, 2021, 08:42:05 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on January 01, 2021, 06:35:07 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 31, 2020, 06:47:42 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on December 30, 2020, 05:44:42 AM
Quote from: spork on December 29, 2020, 02:42:24 PM
Situation at my brother's household has changed. His wife has recovered fully and will be returning to work soon. The three other people in the house now have symptoms resembling the flu plus, for one person, loss of taste, who got a positive test result yesterday. The other two, one of which is my brother, are waiting for test results but are most likely positive for Covid-19.

My mother is status quo and likely on the path to a full recovery.

I am sorry.  I'm still struggling (emotionally) with/about BIL who had covid and will continue to interact with others.

He should be fine by now right? My understanding is that if you're recovered and more than a ten days from illness onset, you don't need to quarantine.

Yes, he has recovered and doesn't need to quarantine.  It's his attitude about the whole thing, and his every intention to return to engaging socially.  It's as if, now that he's had it, he'll be fine doing whatever he wants to do, even though there is a slight chance he could get it again.  And of course......my sister, who fortunately, took the very wise precaution of sending him to the guest room immediately upon his return from his ill fated jaunt, could somehow be exposed.

I'm sure you know this, but probably best to just let this go. Realistically, the risk to your sister is small, probably risks in other aspects of her life are much greater. Totally understandable that your BIL would become the focus of your anger and frustration but probably best to just try not to spend your energy thinking about his choices and actions.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on January 01, 2021, 08:53:02 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on January 01, 2021, 08:11:20 AM
ALHS went to the hospital earlier this week for a routine lab procedure.  He said the lobby was lined up with people clear down the hall connecting to the doctors' building where he went in.  As the nurse did his COVID screening, she asked if he was there for a COVID vaccine.  Huh?  She said they'd gotten their vaccines and all the building personnel in the hospital and the doctors' offices had gotten their shots, so they opened it up to the public--one line for people who were walk-ins, and another for those who'd checked in and requested one on the "My Chart" online system.

He declined, partly because there's still a bit of leeriness on both our parts about the safety and possible reactions, but mainly because he's been on daily IV antibiotics since November 3, and he's avoiding anything that could possibly screw that up. My first reaction when he told me was to call my internist and get in line, but I think I'm going to wait, especially since I'm OK with staying at home and also since I don't have to go back to work until August at the earliest. It also kind of feels like line-jumping at this stage of things. Across the river, there are daily news reports about medical people unable to get the vaccine--but that's got more to do with state politics/leadership than with me getting a shot.

Still, the whole, "do you want a COVID shot?" was pretty unexpected.  (We, and the hospital, are in Illinois, metro St. Louis.)

I'd certainly get it. You really shouldn't worry about the safety or allergic reactions. I also don't think you should worry about line jumping. The vaccines have a limited shelf life and its better to vaccinate people than have them go to waste if they can't be distributed in an optimal way.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on January 01, 2021, 09:08:54 AM
Good points, Caracal.  I'll call my doctor Monday and make sure he OKs it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: PScientist on January 01, 2021, 12:33:40 PM
Quote from: Caracal on January 01, 2021, 08:53:02 AM
I'd certainly get it. You really shouldn't worry about the safety or allergic reactions. I also don't think you should worry about line jumping. The vaccines have a limited shelf life and its better to vaccinate people than have them go to waste if they can't be distributed in an optimal way.

Exactly - most states are currently on pace to have tens of thousands of doses expire in the last week of January, and there is more on the way.  If it's offered to you according to your state's priority system, you shouldn't be "too nice."  Every dose that goes into someone's arm can have an impact on ending the horror movie that we are living in.  Every dose that expires in the freezer definitely does not.

My state just opened it up a couple days ago to "frontline essential education workers" among many other groups, and there is no clarification about K-12 vs. college, so I am assuming that I would be eligible as someone who is scheduled to teach in-person college classes this semester.  If I find a provider offering it, I'm signing up.  Yes, I'm a mostly-healthy 45 year old, but plenty of previously-healthy 45 year olds are dead or have long-term effects.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on January 01, 2021, 08:16:42 PM
Quote from: PScientist on January 01, 2021, 12:33:40 PM
Quote from: Caracal on January 01, 2021, 08:53:02 AM
I'd certainly get it. You really shouldn't worry about the safety or allergic reactions. I also don't think you should worry about line jumping. The vaccines have a limited shelf life and its better to vaccinate people than have them go to waste if they can't be distributed in an optimal way.

Exactly - most states are currently on pace to have tens of thousands of doses expire in the last week of January, and there is more on the way.  If it's offered to you according to your state's priority system, you shouldn't be "too nice."  Every dose that goes into someone's arm can have an impact on ending the horror movie that we are living in.  Every dose that expires in the freezer definitely does not.

Plus, if you don't get infected, then you don't infect others. Cutting down the risk of you infecting others (even if the risk to you were minimal) is much better for everyone than letting a vaccine expire.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on January 02, 2021, 05:54:59 AM
Quote from: Caracal on January 01, 2021, 08:42:05 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on January 01, 2021, 06:35:07 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 31, 2020, 06:47:42 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on December 30, 2020, 05:44:42 AM
Quote from: spork on December 29, 2020, 02:42:24 PM
Situation at my brother's household has changed. His wife has recovered fully and will be returning to work soon. The three other people in the house now have symptoms resembling the flu plus, for one person, loss of taste, who got a positive test result yesterday. The other two, one of which is my brother, are waiting for test results but are most likely positive for Covid-19.

My mother is status quo and likely on the path to a full recovery.

I am sorry.  I'm still struggling (emotionally) with/about BIL who had covid and will continue to interact with others.

He should be fine by now right? My understanding is that if you're recovered and more than a ten days from illness onset, you don't need to quarantine.

Yes, he has recovered and doesn't need to quarantine.  It's his attitude about the whole thing, and his every intention to return to engaging socially.  It's as if, now that he's had it, he'll be fine doing whatever he wants to do, even though there is a slight chance he could get it again.  And of course......my sister, who fortunately, took the very wise precaution of sending him to the guest room immediately upon his return from his ill fated jaunt, could somehow be exposed.

I'm sure you know this, but probably best to just let this go. Realistically, the risk to your sister is small, probably risks in other aspects of her life are much greater. Totally understandable that your BIL would become the focus of your anger and frustration but probably best to just try not to spend your energy thinking about his choices and actions.


Thanks..  I needed to hear that.  I'm working on it!!!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on January 02, 2021, 06:43:09 PM
The Old Forum mantra still holds:

You can't change others, and you can't change situations.

You can only change yourself, and how you respond to those others, and to those situations.

M.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on January 04, 2021, 05:18:18 PM
Our state now has a patient with no history of travel, who has the new variant of the virus. The following is an excerpt from the daily email update on the virus from the governor's office.

"Unfortunately, the Wadsworth Laboratory in Albany has confirmed the first known case of the U.K. variant of the virus that causes COVID-19 in New York State. An individual from Saratoga County, NY, with no known recent travel, tested positive for the strain, which scientists say is more contagious than other strains. It is not believed to be deadlier or to cause more severe disease.

We are asking anyone who visited N. Fox Jewelers in Saratoga Springs, NY, between Dec. 18 and Dec. 24, to please get tested as soon as possible. Because the individual who tested positive for this variant did not travel recently, it is likely that the strain is spreading in the community."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on January 04, 2021, 06:09:07 PM
I saw a recent Facebook comment to the effect that "some doctors think wearing masks is dangerous, too." Is that really true? If so, why? My gut reaction is that the commenter is grabbing a hypothetical as an excuse to do what they want to do, rather than relying on actual published authoritative recommendations that they don't want to do.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on January 04, 2021, 06:13:33 PM
Quote from: pgher on January 04, 2021, 06:09:07 PM
I saw a recent Facebook comment to the effect that "some doctors think wearing masks is dangerous, too." Is that really true? If so, why? My gut reaction is that the commenter is grabbing a hypothetical as an excuse to do what they want to do, rather than relying on actual published authoritative recommendations that they don't want to do.

No, except for a few quacks who should have their licenses revoked.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on January 04, 2021, 06:14:00 PM
So far, the vaccine rollouts are less than inspiring and encouraging.  Plus talk of cutting Moderna doses in half?

I am optimistic things will get better in the coming weeks.  Israel is reportedly doing very well; maybe we can learn from their example?  If they have an extra shot left, they go out in the street and vaccinate a pizza delivery guy, they don't waste that vaccine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on January 05, 2021, 07:07:16 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on January 04, 2021, 06:14:00 PM
So far, the vaccine rollouts are less than inspiring and encouraging.  Plus talk of cutting Moderna doses in half?

I am optimistic things will get better in the coming weeks.  Israel is reportedly doing very well; maybe we can learn from their example?  If they have an extra shot left, they go out in the street and vaccinate a pizza delivery guy, they don't waste that vaccine.

It isn't surprising that the US is doing such a bad job with the lack of federal leadership and the lack of national health infrastructure to oversee the roll out of the vaccine.  While Israel may be doing well, it seems that some other countries with national health infrastructure are also not doing a great job though. Is this not something that was planned ahead of time?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 05, 2021, 07:27:14 AM
Quote from: downer on January 05, 2021, 07:07:16 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on January 04, 2021, 06:14:00 PM
So far, the vaccine rollouts are less than inspiring and encouraging.  Plus talk of cutting Moderna doses in half?

I am optimistic things will get better in the coming weeks.  Israel is reportedly doing very well; maybe we can learn from their example?  If they have an extra shot left, they go out in the street and vaccinate a pizza delivery guy, they don't waste that vaccine.

It isn't surprising that the US is doing such a bad job with the lack of federal leadership and the lack of national health infrastructure to oversee the roll out of the vaccine.  While Israel may be doing well, it seems that some other countries with national health infrastructure are also not doing a great job though. Is this not something that was planned ahead of time?

Undoubtedly, but they've had to make their plans while simultaneously overseeing an accelerated vaccine development and test program and dealing with the public health crisis of the century.  It's hard to drain the swamp when you're already up to your rear end in alligators.

Israel may have pointers worth picking up on, but let's not forget that they're a geographically minute nation.  Not a nation of over 300 million people spread over a couple million square miles.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on January 05, 2021, 08:08:54 AM
The one thing everyone seems to overlook in their vaccine rollout complaints is that this all started during Christmas. Now I fully agree that that should NOT be a factor, but think about how hard it is to track down someone at your institution over the last three week. Everyone was OUT.
   Mr. Buster works at a globally recognized medical center. This is a place that had testing up and running as fast anywhere in the country. Even they had issues getting all the employees vaccinated due to the holiday break. He got his first dose the Monday after Christmas. This was well before many who should have been higher priority, simply because he was willing to drive into work on that day. Trying to get the state or county public health folks organized over Christmas? Good luck!
   For those interested he got the Moderna. Slight headache that afternoon and a sore arm for 24 hours after. The stated plan was to vaccinate all in hospital patients starting 1/4, so I assume at that point they think all employees will have had at least the first dose.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on January 05, 2021, 09:03:22 AM
Quote from: downer on January 05, 2021, 07:07:16 AM
Is this not something that was planned ahead of time?

The lack of health-disaster preparedness in the U.S., as revealed by the current crisis, is stunning.  I'm hopeful much will be learned and analysts will have solid recommendations for improving vaccine distribution, etc. in the future after they study the many deficiencies revealed by this case.  Future generations shall benefit from our suffering.

At least some states had longstanding vaccine distribution plans (pre-COVID-19) but those are being cast aside now.  Waste of planning time and money?

And our system of federalism leads to lots of passing the buck and shirking responsibility: "it's the feds' fault, it's the states' fault, the locals are inept," and so on.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on January 05, 2021, 09:37:19 AM
Actually, an article I read, over the summer, I think, pointed out that the Obama health workers had left a detailed plan, developed after the earlier SARS issues had arisen, for just such a pandemic as arrived.

It was thrown out by the incoming administration's workers shortly after they transitioned into place in January of 2020.

I'll look for the article, I have the link in my emails.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on January 05, 2021, 09:37:51 AM
Actually, an article I read, over the summer, I think, pointed out that the Obama health workers had left a detailed plan, developed after the earlier SARS issues had arisen, for just such a pandemic as arrived.

It was thrown out by the incoming administration's workers shortly after they transitioned into place in January of 2020.

I'll look for the article, I have the link in my emails.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ciao_yall on January 05, 2021, 09:57:20 AM
There is a whole writeup on what went wrong with COVID in the New Yorker.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/04/the-plague-year

If it's behind a paywall, PM me and I'll send you a PDF.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on January 05, 2021, 11:25:37 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 05, 2021, 07:27:14 AM
Undoubtedly, but they've had to make their plans while simultaneously overseeing an accelerated vaccine development and test program and dealing with the public health crisis of the century.  It's hard to drain the swamp when you're already up to your rear end in alligators.

Israel may have pointers worth picking up on, but let's not forget that they're a geographically minute nation.  Not a nation of over 300 million people spread over a couple million square miles.

Israel has nevertheless done far better than other minute nations and seems to be in a league of its own regarding vaccinations. Belgium is also a minute state and has been far worse hit, yet doesn't match Israel in immunization rates. Then again, Belgium isn't known as the world's richest failed state for nothing.

QuoteThe lack of health-disaster preparedness in the U.S., as revealed by the current crisis, is stunning.  I'm hopeful much will be learned and analysts will have solid recommendations for improving vaccine distribution, etc. in the future after they study the many deficiencies revealed by this case.  Future generations shall benefit from our suffering.

At least some states had longstanding vaccine distribution plans (pre-COVID-19) but those are being cast aside now.  Waste of planning time and money?

And our system of federalism leads to lots of passing the buck and shirking responsibility: "it's the feds' fault, it's the states' fault, the locals are inept," and so on.

France has a centralized system, yet has done far worse than the US:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55529240 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55529240)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on January 05, 2021, 02:05:51 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on January 05, 2021, 11:25:37 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 05, 2021, 07:27:14 AM
Undoubtedly, but they've had to make their plans while simultaneously overseeing an accelerated vaccine development and test program and dealing with the public health crisis of the century.  It's hard to drain the swamp when you're already up to your rear end in alligators.

Israel may have pointers worth picking up on, but let's not forget that they're a geographically minute nation.  Not a nation of over 300 million people spread over a couple million square miles.

Israel has nevertheless done far better than other minute nations and seems to be in a league of its own regarding vaccinations. Belgium is also a minute state and has been far worse hit, yet doesn't match Israel in immunization rates. Then again, Belgium isn't known as the world's richest failed state for nothing.

QuoteThe lack of health-disaster preparedness in the U.S., as revealed by the current crisis, is stunning.  I'm hopeful much will be learned and analysts will have solid recommendations for improving vaccine distribution, etc. in the future after they study the many deficiencies revealed by this case.  Future generations shall benefit from our suffering.

At least some states had longstanding vaccine distribution plans (pre-COVID-19) but those are being cast aside now.  Waste of planning time and money?

And our system of federalism leads to lots of passing the buck and shirking responsibility: "it's the feds' fault, it's the states' fault, the locals are inept," and so on.

France has a centralized system, yet has done far worse than the US:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55529240 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55529240)

I would also argue that "minute" nations also have proportionally "minute" resources.  Obviously things are more complex when there are 300 million people, but the US has more resources per capita than most and that is why there are local governments etc.   

I think part of the answer here is also related to who has access to vaccines.  There is a very limited supply and Israel managed to get near the front of the line (probably good planning).  For example, I am in Canada, and we do not have access to enough vaccine to be at the same point as Israel.  Of course, even if we did, we would have botched it since we have not even been able to use what we do have. 

Centralized systems are only more efficient if they are well managed.  My understanding of Europe's vaccine plan is that they kind of dropped the ball. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 05, 2021, 03:17:53 PM
The fact that there are problems getting the vaccination efforts in gear in so many nations suggests that it's more a matter of the inherent challenges involved than cloddish incompetence on the part of this or that political leadership.  Again, this is not an easy project we're talking about.  As stupid as the Trump administration's failure to maintain the Obama-era preparations for mass vaccination may have been, I can't help suspecting that any theoretical vaccination plans made several years before COVID showed up would have had a serious problem measuring up to the real-world challenges that they have to deal with now. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on January 05, 2021, 03:41:49 PM
QuoteAs stupid as the Trump administration's failure to maintain the Obama-era preparations for mass vaccination may have been, I can't help suspecting that any theoretical vaccination plans made several years before COVID showed up would have had a serious problem measuring up to the real-world challenges that they have to deal with now.

Alas, there were many, many, too many plans to combat such problems made over the years.  There's this, from April no less: https://medium.com/cicero-news/why-two-decades-of-pandemic-planning-failed-a20608d05800

Upshot is that Congress never gave any individual Agency authority to do anything. The author is too CDC friendly, the firm that brought you no masks and no tests. The same could be written about the FDA, which brought delayed vaccines. Hell, vaccines were created on the first weekend the virus was put on the web.

The problem is not one of federalism -- see federal Germany, and non-federal France, so far --  but rather Congress passing the buck to experts, who in turn become intensely political. They make things so safe -- for themselves,  to keep their jobs.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on January 05, 2021, 04:23:18 PM
Quoteexperts, who in turn become intensely political. They make things so safe -- for themselves,  to keep their jobs.

....except when they don't, and then they're fired, sidelined, and silenced.

This is indeed the month of Janus, the two-faced god of those that want everything both ways.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on January 05, 2021, 05:25:41 PM
Not just in terms of vaccines, but more broadly I think broadly in terms of pandemic response two issues appear to be decisive, overriding everything else:

-Public leadership and effective public sector action, from leadership at the top to sufficiently nimble public agencies. For a particularly dramatic comparison, Belgium would seem to have every material advantage compared to Vietnam, yet Vietnam has done orders of magnitude better - the Vietnamese authorities were willing and able to take drastic action quickly and effectively, while Belgium in recent years broke Iraq's record of length of time without a government.
-Societal response and attitudes - from willingness to accept being inconvenienced for the sake of the greater good to trust in science to a sense of responsibility towards others. Confucianist cultures did extremely well pretty much regardless of wealth, size or form of government (including Japan where there were no drastic government measures), while non-Confucianist places run by divisive populists (USA, UK, Mexico, Brazil) have done pretty badly. Theocratic Iran has done worse than probably any country between the Red Sea and the Bering Strait.

Wealth, form of government, physical geography and population density appear to be irrelevant in comparison.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on January 05, 2021, 05:38:41 PM
Yup, Fuehrung!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on January 07, 2021, 06:14:29 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 05, 2021, 05:38:41 PM
Yup, Fuehrung!

Huh?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on January 07, 2021, 06:22:32 AM
My mother's symptoms are almost completely gone, though she is still suffering from fatigue and some loss of appetite. She said she felt the worst on Sunday and that this was due to shortness of breath. The outbreak at her retirement home has been contained, basically because all residents have been confined to their apartments for the last two weeks with cold meals being delivered to their doors (hot meals were stopped so that potentially infectious kitchen workers could be kept out of the building). The main problem now is residents' declining mental health due to isolation.

People in my brother's household are still symptomatic but none of them are severely ill. His wife, the first one to test positive, has fully recovered and is back to work. But her sister, who is pregnant, is now infected.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 06:32:43 AM
Continued good thoughts for you and all your family members, Spork.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 07, 2021, 07:19:34 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 06:32:43 AM
Continued good thoughts for you and all your family members, Spork.

M.

Yes.

Our staff member is now on the mend and released from quarantine to come back to work.  She has a bit of a lingering cough. 

Our assistant pastor at church was quarantined several months ago due to an exposure to an infected family member on a visit.  He didn't contract it then.  He DID contract COVID last month, on another family visit.  Having recovered well from that, he has now been laid low by a stomach bug that hit everybody at a holiday gathering with his wife's family.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on January 07, 2021, 07:24:06 AM
I finally heard from my friend a few days ago.  She hasn't been hospitalized but has been very sick. She said she thinks she's getting better but sounds like she still feels awful. (She's working with the pulmonologist for her COPD, so she is under care.)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on January 07, 2021, 09:16:22 AM
Quote from: spork on January 07, 2021, 06:22:32 AM
My mother's symptoms are almost completely gone, though she is still suffering from fatigue and some loss of appetite. She said she felt the worst on Sunday and that this was due to shortness of breath. The outbreak at her retirement home has been contained, basically because all residents have been confined to their apartments for the last two weeks with cold meals being delivered to their doors (hot meals were stopped so that potentially infectious kitchen workers could be kept out of the building). The main problem now is residents' declining mental health due to isolation.

People in my brother's household are still symptomatic but none of them are severely ill. His wife, the first one to test positive, has fully recovered and is back to work. But her sister, who is pregnant, is now infected.

Glad to hear that your mother is feeling better. I'm appalled though that seniors are reduced to eating cold meals. Can these meals be warmed up in a microwave? Do these apartments come with microwaves? Providing cold meals to seniors would be considered elder abuse in many developing countries.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on January 07, 2021, 09:25:49 AM
Yes. Each apartment has a small kitchen with oven, stove, and microwave. But warming up a sandwich doesn't do much.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on January 07, 2021, 09:31:01 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 07, 2021, 09:16:22 AM
Quote from: spork on January 07, 2021, 06:22:32 AM
My mother's symptoms are almost completely gone, though she is still suffering from fatigue and some loss of appetite. She said she felt the worst on Sunday and that this was due to shortness of breath. The outbreak at her retirement home has been contained, basically because all residents have been confined to their apartments for the last two weeks with cold meals being delivered to their doors (hot meals were stopped so that potentially infectious kitchen workers could be kept out of the building). The main problem now is residents' declining mental health due to isolation.

People in my brother's household are still symptomatic but none of them are severely ill. His wife, the first one to test positive, has fully recovered and is back to work. But her sister, who is pregnant, is now infected.

Glad to hear that your mother is feeling better. I'm appalled though that seniors are reduced to eating cold meals. Can these meals be warmed up in a microwave? Do these apartments come with microwaves? Providing cold meals to seniors would be considered elder abuse in many developing countries.

My mother lives in a similar retirement community, which went into lockdown for about 3 weeks, with food delivered.  Fortunately, hers was not (consciously) cold.  I can more than empathize with Spork's mother and her fellow residents, but, damn, it's a tough call for the administrators (and the profit making companies that own the places).  Mother's apartment has a complete kitchen, including a microwave, but they may no longer have toaster ovens as some residents would re heat food and forget to turn them off.  All meals are provided in the monthly fee.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on January 07, 2021, 10:09:28 AM
Finally some good news.  Based on some activities I volunteered for that place me at higher risk, my priority to get vaccinated was moved to 1A according to the published criteria for my state.  The Uni is running a vaccination clinic staffed by faculty and students.  I got the Moderna vaccine from a student I had in class last year.  My sense of relief is palpable. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on January 07, 2021, 10:15:12 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 07, 2021, 10:09:28 AM
  I got the Moderna vaccine from a student I had in class last year.

Good for you!  The student part?  I would not like that at all.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on January 07, 2021, 11:37:03 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on January 07, 2021, 10:15:12 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 07, 2021, 10:09:28 AM
  I got the Moderna vaccine from a student I had in class last year.

Good for you!  The student part?  I would not like that at all.

Between her coursework and her internship hours, she's probably vaccinated a couple of thousand people.  It's pretty routine for me to receive vaccines from students here at Artem U.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 07, 2021, 11:50:07 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 07, 2021, 11:37:03 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on January 07, 2021, 10:15:12 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 07, 2021, 10:09:28 AM
  I got the Moderna vaccine from a student I had in class last year.

Good for you!  The student part?  I would not like that at all.

Between her coursework and her internship hours, she's probably vaccinated a couple of thousand people.  It's pretty routine for me to receive vaccines from students here at Artem U.

That'll give you an incentive to make sure you do your job right, huh?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on January 07, 2021, 01:03:32 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 07, 2021, 11:37:03 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on January 07, 2021, 10:15:12 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 07, 2021, 10:09:28 AM
  I got the Moderna vaccine from a student I had in class last year.

Good for you!  The student part?  I would not like that at all.

Between her coursework and her internship hours, she's probably vaccinated a couple of thousand people.  It's pretty routine for me to receive vaccines from students here at Artem U.

Let's just hope you passed her...

Seriously though, injecting a vaccine is pretty straight forward so I don't see much issue. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on January 07, 2021, 04:44:07 PM
I'm hearing about more and more students, TAs, and coworkers getting COVID.  What's scary is that some tested positive, but don't have any symptoms (yet).  So many cases and it's still a small enough percentage of the community so we are nowhere near "herd immunity".  It's going to be a long winter.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on January 07, 2021, 07:38:16 PM
Quote from: the_geneticist on January 07, 2021, 04:44:07 PM
I'm hearing about more and more students, TAs, and coworkers getting COVID.  What's scary is that some tested positive, but don't have any symptoms (yet).  So many cases and it's still a small enough percentage of the community so we are nowhere near "herd immunity".  It's going to be a long winter.

Heard on the news that 59% of spread is asymptomatic.

I was talking to a colleague today whose town has >30% positivity rates. That's not good. I think my city's rate is in the mid-20's.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on January 08, 2021, 07:16:10 AM
My county/region are at 30+
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on January 08, 2021, 10:59:42 AM
Background.... Democrats claim that they will 'follow the science'.  Recent headlines are that the Biden camp is looking to release the reserved vaccines.  Remember that the SCIENCE says that it takes 2 shots - given 3 or 4 weeks apart, depending on the brand.  The Trump administration has reserved the second shot to ensure that once the sequence is started, the second shot is available for on time delivery.

Now the Biden camp is reportedly looking to follow the British plan to give everyone one shot right away and catch up on the second 'when we can'.  How is THAT following the SCIENCE? 

Currently unknown, as far as I can determine, is what happens IF you dont get the second shot, or you dont get it for four months, rather than 4 weeks?  Will you have immunity or not?  IF not, then this is all a 'feel good' waste!  Without immunity, then there is no point in even getting the shot?  It wont help the hospitalization rates, or help reduce fatalities.

IF one has to go through all sorts of hurdles and wait in all sorts of lines to get the first shot, would you repeat it to get the still in short supply second shot?  And even if you were willing, it is not likely that if the supplies are released that there will even BE a second shot to get (and it wont likely be available as designed!)

Idiots! 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on January 08, 2021, 11:08:32 AM
Quote from: clean on January 08, 2021, 10:59:42 AM
Now the Biden camp is reportedly looking to follow the British plan to give everyone one shot right away and catch up on the second 'when we can'.  How is THAT following the SCIENCE? 

It's not.  Trying to take shortcuts in life often has negative consequences.  I'd rather they take the months to recruit volunteers and conduct new trials to determine efficacy of different dosage methods.

But things are starting to sound desperate so, who knows....?

All the supposedly bureaucratic delays holding up getting people vaccinated are puzzling.  More transparency from officials would be nice.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on January 08, 2021, 11:21:10 AM
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-release-covid-19-vaccine-doses-departure-current/story?id=75134072

QuoteIt's not.

Im afraid that they ARE.  At least that is the reading of this article and several others that are available to read.

The article indicates that the incoming administration is going to HOPE that the production of new vaccine is sufficient to get the second dose out on time. 

"A Biden transition official tells ABC News they have faith vaccine manufacturers can produce enough vaccines to ensure people get their second dose in a timely manner"
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on January 08, 2021, 11:40:04 AM
Quote from: clean on January 08, 2021, 11:21:10 AM
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-release-covid-19-vaccine-doses-departure-current/story?id=75134072

QuoteIt's not.

Im afraid that they ARE.  At least that is the reading of this article and several others that are available to read.

The article indicates that the incoming administration is going to HOPE that the production of new vaccine is sufficient to get the second dose out on time. 

"A Biden transition official tells ABC News they have faith vaccine manufacturers can produce enough vaccines to ensure people get their second dose in a timely manner"

I don't think they are going on hope-- I'm certain they've talked with the manufacturers and gotten assurances on this front, and are also saying they will use the defense production act if necessary.

At any rate the major bottleneck right now is not available doses but getting them into people. Many states are not being flexible enough with priority levels to use doses efficiently. They need to get a lot nimbler about this, fast!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on January 08, 2021, 11:55:26 AM
Everything I've read, and heard second- or third-hand from public health officials and physicians who are more closely connected to the vaccination process than I am, indicates that the problem is with distribution, not production.

I want to clarify something I wrote upthread about my mom's situation. She lives in a non-profit, charity-operated retirement home. It's not an assisted living facility, nursing home, or similar hellscape owned by a private equity firm. The place had zero Covid-19 cases until the week before Christmas; the staff has done a good job keeping everyone healthy and alive.

Question for people who might have more technical knowledge on the subject than I do: publicly-reported Covid-19 deaths now stand at about 365,000 in the USA. Yet if I look at state health department and CDC mortality statistics for excess deaths in 2020, heart disease and dementias are by far the leading causes. Excess deaths from respiratory infections, which is the category in which I assume most Covid-19 deaths would be put, are far lower. Also total excess deaths are no where near what would create a national total of 365,000. So what's going on?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on January 08, 2021, 11:59:40 AM
QuoteI don't think they are going on hope
Quote"A Biden transition official tells ABC News they have faith vaccine manufacturers can produce enough vaccines

Is "Faith" =/= "hope" in this case?

How to you ensure that the second shot is going to be there when it is required in 3/4 weeks respectively?  Set it aside when the first one is given.
Anything short of that is adding uncertainty and potentially putting people's lives at risk.
Perhaps I am too extreme on this, but I still think that someone is going to DIE because the second dose is not available when it should be given and some will mistakenly believe that they are able to reduce their safety measures.

How many are shopping NOW without a mask?  Will everyone be even as vigilant after the first shot?  Remember, many say that the mask protects THEM, not you.  IF they are not wearing a mask, are You protected??  Or will we be back to discussing the meaning of "hope" with respect to the level of immunity delivered after only one dose of the vaccine (and a second 'promised' at a future date).


The Defense Production Act?  Give me a break!  It is not going to make items appear from nothing?  (It is not a star trek replicator!)  It takes time to get done initially, and even then, it takes time to change the manufacturing.  It wont ensure that the second dose is available ON TIME.

On Preview, I agree that the news seems to indicate that Spork is correct. The problem is not making the vaccine, but getting it effectively distributed from the states!  Having more available wont get it out of the states' warehouses and into arms!
In my area the reginal grocery store chain is supposed to be dispensing shots soon.  Send it to THEIR warehouse and let them ship from there!  (They certainly know how to put TP on the shelves, ONCE they get it from the suppliers!)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on January 08, 2021, 01:12:56 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/biden-plans-to-release-the-entire-coronavirus-vaccine-supply-instead-of-reserving-half-to-guarantee-second-doses/ar-BB1cAxfQ?ocid=Peregrine&li=BBnb7Kz

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on January 08, 2021, 01:13:15 PM
Quote from: clean on January 08, 2021, 11:21:10 AM
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-release-covid-19-vaccine-doses-departure-current/story?id=75134072

QuoteIt's not.

Im afraid that they ARE.  At least that is the reading of this article and several others that are available to read.


I meant that it's not science to not follow findings and procedures derived from scientific vaccine trials.  I wasn't using "it's" in reference to Biden Admin.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on January 08, 2021, 01:14:48 PM
Quote from: spork on January 08, 2021, 11:55:26 AM
Question for people who might have more technical knowledge on the subject than I do: publicly-reported Covid-19 deaths now stand at about 365,000 in the USA. Yet if I look at state health department and CDC mortality statistics for excess deaths in 2020, heart disease and dementias are by far the leading causes. Excess deaths from respiratory infections, which is the category in which I assume most Covid-19 deaths would be put, are far lower. Also total excess deaths are no where near what would create a national total of 365,000. So what's going on?

Interesting.  There were fewer flu deaths, right?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on January 08, 2021, 01:24:24 PM
QuoteInteresting.  There were fewer flu deaths, right?

Travel restrictions are being given significant credit for the drop in the cases of flu in the Northern Hemisphere.  Most flu cases occur in the 'winter'. Those with the flu in the Southern Hemisphere over the June/September (and beyond) period - (Winter in the Southern Hemisphere) were not permitted to venture to the Northern Hemisphere to pass the flu along. 

In addition, the mask requirements and better personal hygiene (hand washing) is also credited with the drop in flu cases.  Few flu cases, fewer flu deaths. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on January 08, 2021, 01:42:44 PM
Quote from: clean on January 08, 2021, 01:24:24 PM
QuoteInteresting.  There were fewer flu deaths, right?

Travel restrictions are being given significant credit for the drop in the cases of flu in the Northern Hemisphere.  Most flu cases occur in the 'winter'. Those with the flu in the Southern Hemisphere over the June/September (and beyond) period - (Winter in the Southern Hemisphere) were not permitted to venture to the Northern Hemisphere to pass the flu along. 

In addition, the mask requirements and better personal hygiene (hand washing) is also credited with the drop in flu cases.  Few flu cases, fewer flu deaths.

Even if all "Covid-19 deaths" are being categorized as heart disease and dementia deaths, the numbers still don't add up.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on January 08, 2021, 02:24:45 PM
Quote from: clean on January 08, 2021, 11:59:40 AM
QuoteI don't think they are going on hope
Quote"A Biden transition official tells ABC News they have faith vaccine manufacturers can produce enough vaccines

Is "Faith" =/= "hope" in this case?

You are being extremely literal minded here-- it's an expression, which almost certainly actually means "we talked to the manufacturers and they assured us they anticipate no problems with maintaining a manufacturing schedule that yields enough second doses on time". I know it's going to take some readjustment to the idea that experts are making decisions in consultation with other experts again, but do you seriously think "faith" means they just prayed on it?

Yes, I think you are being too extreme-- it's not like supply chain is a completely novel concept no one has dealt with before, and people certainly are going to die if vaccine is hoarded in freezers instead of administered. Since we know the first dose provides considerable protection, the certainty of that seems worth the small risk of something unanticipated delaying second doses if the companies are very confident that that is an unlikely possibility.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on January 08, 2021, 05:57:51 PM
Quotebut do you seriously think "faith" means they just prayed on it?
Now who is " being extremely literal minded here--"


IF you have the second dose reserved when the first is delivered, then there is CERTAINTY that the second dose can be administered AS DESIGNED.

IF the new administration decides to release that second dose, then there is a probability (ie the introduction of 'hope/faith') that there will be some failure that will mean that the second dose IS UNAVAILABLE, for whatever reason/failure when the prescribed time arrives for the follow-up shot... the part of the shot that provides the rest of the immunity  (the part that ensures CERTAINTY)!

I prefer to deal, as much as I can, with Certainty - especially when related to health!

There are enough idiots and assholes who have declared that their personal freedom to infect others surpasses their need to wear a mask.  (and enough grocery stores/walmarts that, though they have stated a policy to require masks, wont enforce/follow it! to make it dangerous for everyone else.)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on January 08, 2021, 07:13:36 PM
Quote from: clean on January 08, 2021, 05:57:51 PM
Quotebut do you seriously think "faith" means they just prayed on it?
Now who is " being extremely literal minded here--"


IF you have the second dose reserved when the first is delivered, then there is CERTAINTY that the second dose can be administered AS DESIGNED.

IF the new administration decides to release that second dose, then there is a probability (ie the introduction of 'hope/faith') that there will be some failure that will mean that the second dose IS UNAVAILABLE, for whatever reason/failure when the prescribed time arrives for the follow-up shot... the part of the shot that provides the rest of the immunity  (the part that ensures CERTAINTY)!

I prefer to deal, as much as I can, with Certainty - especially when related to health!

There are enough idiots and assholes who have declared that their personal freedom to infect others surpasses their need to wear a mask.  (and enough grocery stores/walmarts that, though they have stated a policy to require masks, wont enforce/follow it! to make it dangerous for everyone else.)


So you'd rather have the certainty that more people will die waiting for the first dose than the relatively small risk that for some reason production will fall off a cliff preventing the expected manufacturing of enough second doses? I'm sorry, but that simply makes no scientific sense to me in terms of thinking about the probabilities and risk/benefit analysis.

And I don't see what bearing idiots who won't wear masks have on manufacturing schedules.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on January 09, 2021, 09:49:11 AM
I prefer that the vaccine be delivered AS Designed. 
I fear that people will drop their guard after getting the first/only shot and that things will be even worse.

I dont know that this mixes apples and oranges, but people who take antibiotics, but not finish the course allow the surviving germs to be resistant to the treatment. 

So, I would prefer that we do what we are doing... We can still increase production, attempt to vaccinate all that can be vaccinated.

The problem, as Spork mentioned above, seems to currently be that there are bottlenecks in the ABILITY to vaccinate large amounts of people.  Flooding more vaccine would not get more needles in arms as that is not where the bottleneck may actually lie. 

Those waiting on the vaccine to be administered can remain at home and self isolate.  The Biden folks re hoping that the second dose will be available as needed, when the problem may not actually be the shortage of vaccine (as the bottleneck may well be elsewhere).  Once the shot is taken, especially if/when the second dose is questionable, the isolation will break and EVEN MORE will get sick.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on January 09, 2021, 10:34:33 AM
Quote from: clean on January 09, 2021, 09:49:11 AM
I prefer that the vaccine be delivered AS Designed. 

+1

The Johnson and Johnson vaccine pending would require only one dose, though they are studying two doses.  It is stable under more typical refrigeration for about 3 months, special freezers not needed.  It is cheaper. "Unlike the two mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is based on a modified adenovirus, the virus that causes the common cold."

Fingers crossed that this one proves effective.  Approval could come as early as February.

https://sanduskyregister.com/news/297606/other-vaccines-on-the-way/

Wish I could share Puget's enthusiastic confidence in the vaccine process going forward.  So far, it's been chaotic and seriously flawed at state and local levels in U.S.  Some doses thrown away due to poor planning and implementation.  Hope Puget is right.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 11, 2021, 07:44:30 AM
Spoke yesterday at church with a nurse of my acquaintance whom I hadn't seen in a while.  She's bearing up well.  Although our county's proportionate losses from COVID are not good, we're a rural area that has not had the overwhelming masses of sick and dying that have created such a horrifying situation for urban hospitals.  She has been working with COVID patients quite recently.  She said that having to get into and out of the "space suit" gear is a challenge.  She's actually glad at being reassigned to surgery.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on January 11, 2021, 07:57:47 AM
Excess mortality: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid (https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 13, 2021, 05:39:49 PM
My friend has tested positive. She just moved from one state to another. She took the test a little while ago and they called her up to say it was negative five days ago. Then Medicaid in her original state called her up today to do contact tracing, because despite what she was told she actually tested positive.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on January 13, 2021, 06:02:08 PM
Quote from: spork on January 11, 2021, 07:57:47 AM
Excess mortality: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid (https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid).

Excellent!

I played around with a couple of countries, the good, the bad and the ugly. They all seem to be hovering around 20% excess mortality, i.e. Germany, Sweden, and the United States, and even Spain. England and Wales are indeed through the roof. As I've said many times before, different polices all, or virtually all, lead to the same result.

New law of motion: Excess deaths = 20%, except in England. :-(
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on January 13, 2021, 06:54:41 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2021, 06:02:08 PM
Quote from: spork on January 11, 2021, 07:57:47 AM
Excess mortality: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid (https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid).

Excellent!

I played around with a couple of countries, the good, the bad and the ugly. They all seem to be hovering around 20% excess mortality, i.e. Germany, Sweden, and the United States, and even Spain. England and Wales are indeed through the roof. As I've said many times before, different polices all, or virtually all, lead to the same result.

New law of motion: Excess deaths = 20%, except in England. :-(

Actually, Taiwan (the only place in East Asia included) had a negative number of excess deaths, including among the elderly, for the last date available, and while on other dates it's sometimes gone positive, it's actually reached negative double digits on occasion, even among the elderly. Since the same precautions protect against the flu, perhaps those negative excess deaths are due to fewer flu cases. The huge April peak in Spain makes the scale make all the other data look comparable if you look at all dates available, but if you switch to looking only at data from June onwards, Belgian excess deaths among the elderly clearly stand out above everyone else, including deaths among the elderly in England & Wales, although very recently excess deaths among the elderly have fallen in Belgium and have shot up in England & Wales. The US and Sweden may have comparable excess deaths, but I would argue their policies have not been all that different.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: bacardiandlime on January 14, 2021, 02:42:37 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2021, 06:02:08 PM
As I've said many times before, different polices all, or virtually all, lead to the same result.

I've been assuming that when the dust settles and we can assess it all in a couple of years, we will see most Western countries had the same death rate.

I'd assume some of the periods that there were excess deaths dropping into negative (which seems to have happened in a few European nations over the summer), that might be a reduction in car accident/workplace deaths?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on January 14, 2021, 04:01:32 AM
Quote from: clean on January 09, 2021, 09:49:11 AM
I prefer that the vaccine be delivered AS Designed. 
I fear that people will drop their guard after getting the first/only shot and that things will be even worse.

I dont know that this mixes apples and oranges, but people who take antibiotics, but not finish the course allow the surviving germs to be resistant to the treatment. 

So, I would prefer that we do what we are doing... We can still increase production, attempt to vaccinate all that can be vaccinated.

The problem, as Spork mentioned above, seems to currently be that there are bottlenecks in the ABILITY to vaccinate large amounts of people.  Flooding more vaccine would not get more needles in arms as that is not where the bottleneck may actually lie. 

Those waiting on the vaccine to be administered can remain at home and self isolate.  The Biden folks re hoping that the second dose will be available as needed, when the problem may not actually be the shortage of vaccine (as the bottleneck may well be elsewhere).  Once the shot is taken, especially if/when the second dose is questionable, the isolation will break and EVEN MORE will get sick.

This is an interesting decision.  Where I am in Canada they have decided to sole out the first shot to as many as possible without holding the second in reserve (some provinces have gone the other route).This is based on the preliminary results showing the first shot provides 50-90% protection, and that it is better from a public health perspective to have twice as many people with this level of protection than half of that with 95%.

Of course, this has its critics based on the fact that the clinical trials were based on two shots and the thought that people will assume they are safe and take fewer precautions.

I don't know which approach is best since both arguments are logical and there is disagreement among people working in this field.  The problem is that we don't actually have all the information we would need to make a properly informed decision.  Personally, I think a combination might make the most sense, where we would make sure the most vulnerable receive both, but for the general population the other approach could make more sense based on the consequences for either group being infected.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on January 14, 2021, 06:41:19 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on January 13, 2021, 06:54:41 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2021, 06:02:08 PM
Quote from: spork on January 11, 2021, 07:57:47 AM
Excess mortality: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid (https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid).

Excellent!

I played around with a couple of countries, the good, the bad and the ugly. They all seem to be hovering around 20% excess mortality, i.e. Germany, Sweden, and the United States, and even Spain. England and Wales are indeed through the roof. As I've said many times before, different polices all, or virtually all, lead to the same result.

New law of motion: Excess deaths = 20%, except in England. :-(

Actually, Taiwan (the only place in East Asia included) had a negative number of excess deaths, including among the elderly, for the last date available, and while on other dates it's sometimes gone positive, it's actually reached negative double digits on occasion, even among the elderly. Since the same precautions protect against the flu, perhaps those negative excess deaths are due to fewer flu cases. The huge April peak in Spain makes the scale make all the other data look comparable if you look at all dates available, but if you switch to looking only at data from June onwards, Belgian excess deaths among the elderly clearly stand out above everyone else, including deaths among the elderly in England & Wales, although very recently excess deaths among the elderly have fallen in Belgium and have shot up in England & Wales. The US and Sweden may have comparable excess deaths, but I would argue their policies have not been all that different.

I suspect that in three years there will be a general consensus that in many countries, especially the USA where the population is generally very unhealthy, a significant portion of excess deaths were of people who avoided medical treatment for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. during the pandemic.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on January 14, 2021, 06:44:25 AM
Quote from: clean on January 09, 2021, 09:49:11 AM
I prefer that the vaccine be delivered AS Designed. 
I fear that people will drop their guard after getting the first/only shot and that things will be even worse.

I dont know that this mixes apples and oranges, but people who take antibiotics, but not finish the course allow the surviving germs to be resistant to the treatment. 

So, I would prefer that we do what we are doing... We can still increase production, attempt to vaccinate all that can be vaccinated.

The problem, as Spork mentioned above, seems to currently be that there are bottlenecks in the ABILITY to vaccinate large amounts of people.  Flooding more vaccine would not get more needles in arms as that is not where the bottleneck may actually lie. 

Those waiting on the vaccine to be administered can remain at home and self isolate.  The Biden folks re hoping that the second dose will be available as needed, when the problem may not actually be the shortage of vaccine (as the bottleneck may well be elsewhere).  Once the shot is taken, especially if/when the second dose is questionable, the isolation will break and EVEN MORE will get sick.

I really have a problem with this kind of logic. We've seen throughout this pandemic, a pernicious idea that people can't be trusted with correct information and our policies should and guidance should reflect what we fear people will do with information. Remember how part of the reason it took so long to advise people about the benefits of mask wearing was because there was lots of fear among experts that people would think if they were wearing a mask they didn't need to take any other precautions? We still haven't incorporated all the evidence about the hugely reduced risk if you socialize outdoors vs indoors into the guidance people are given. There's this fear that if you tell people some things are safer, they will use that information in an irresponsible way. The results of this kind of thinking have been disastrous.

Same thing here. Basically this is a logistical problem. If you can be pretty sure, that supplies will allow you to give second doses to people on the scheduled timeline even if you don't reserve them, it would make a lot of sense to give more first doses out. The first dose seems to provide pretty substantial protection, and might keep people from getting seriously ill even if they do get COVID. We shouldn't be worrying that if we give more people this thing that will save lives, they will "use it irresponsibly." People are fully capable of understanding that while their risk is reduced somewhat, the protection isn't near as good till the second dose. People who are trying to be careful will continue to try to be careful with that information. If people aren't taking precautions, it won't make any difference anyway. Regardless they will be less likely to get COVID and we could potentially speed up vaccination overall, saving lots of lives.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Harlow2 on January 14, 2021, 07:23:33 AM
Vaccine appointments widened to all older than 65 in my state, with the not unexpected frustration of crashed websites and promised phone scheduling inoperable.  Wasted 2 hours this morning as 1.5 million of us chased the small supply.  I can wait if I have to, but I worry about others for whom waiting could be more problematic.  The effectiveness figures on the AstraZeneca vaccine hover around 60-70 percent. The J&J vaccine is a similar type. Hope it will be better and that those who have to wait won't be penalized with a less effective vaccine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 14, 2021, 09:04:31 AM
I advised our oldest staff member today to go ahead and get her and her husband's name on the list for vaccination, now that eligibility has been widened.  I'm also going to make sure Mom and Dad have done the same.  I think they're probably going to be on top of it already.

Spoke to a vendor that we deal with in another state today who said that she already has her appointment.  She's younger, but is in a high-risk category for medical reasons.  She'll be having to drive an hour to get vaccinated.  It's worth it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morden on January 14, 2021, 09:30:19 AM
In my area of Canada, we don't expect vaccine available to the general population until summer at the earliest. They started with long term care residents and workers and medical staff, and then they will go by age.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on January 14, 2021, 09:37:09 AM
Quote from: Caracal on January 14, 2021, 06:44:25 AM
Quote from: clean on January 09, 2021, 09:49:11 AM
I prefer that the vaccine be delivered AS Designed. 
I fear that people will drop their guard after getting the first/only shot and that things will be even worse.

I dont know that this mixes apples and oranges, but people who take antibiotics, but not finish the course allow the surviving germs to be resistant to the treatment. 

So, I would prefer that we do what we are doing... We can still increase production, attempt to vaccinate all that can be vaccinated.

The problem, as Spork mentioned above, seems to currently be that there are bottlenecks in the ABILITY to vaccinate large amounts of people.  Flooding more vaccine would not get more needles in arms as that is not where the bottleneck may actually lie. 

Those waiting on the vaccine to be administered can remain at home and self isolate.  The Biden folks re hoping that the second dose will be available as needed, when the problem may not actually be the shortage of vaccine (as the bottleneck may well be elsewhere).  Once the shot is taken, especially if/when the second dose is questionable, the isolation will break and EVEN MORE will get sick.

I really have a problem with this kind of logic. We've seen throughout this pandemic, a pernicious idea that people can't be trusted with correct information and our policies should and guidance should reflect what we fear people will do with information. Remember how part of the reason it took so long to advise people about the benefits of mask wearing was because there was lots of fear among experts that people would think if they were wearing a mask they didn't need to take any other precautions? We still haven't incorporated all the evidence about the hugely reduced risk if you socialize outdoors vs indoors into the guidance people are given. There's this fear that if you tell people some things are safer, they will use that information in an irresponsible way. The results of this kind of thinking have been disastrous.

Same thing here. Basically this is a logistical problem. If you can be pretty sure, that supplies will allow you to give second doses to people on the scheduled timeline even if you don't reserve them, it would make a lot of sense to give more first doses out. The first dose seems to provide pretty substantial protection, and might keep people from getting seriously ill even if they do get COVID. We shouldn't be worrying that if we give more people this thing that will save lives, they will "use it irresponsibly." People are fully capable of understanding that while their risk is reduced somewhat, the protection isn't near as good till the second dose. People who are trying to be careful will continue to try to be careful with that information. If people aren't taking precautions, it won't make any difference anyway. Regardless they will be less likely to get COVID and we could potentially speed up vaccination overall, saving lots of lives.

Exactly right-- this is the same type of "moral hazard" argument that has been made about other risk mitigation public health interventions (e.g., HIV prevention, needle exchanges), and which has been repeatedly shown by research to be untrue. People who engage in risky behaviors do so whether or not you mitigate the risk, so it is always better to mitigate the risk.

I think it is important to separate this moral hazard argument from the concern that there won't be enough second doses available on time if you don't hold them back. That's purely a logistical question, and one that the drug companies are in the best position to answer and presumably have said they don't think is a concern at this point.

What you want to know is (1) the probability of a drop-off in manufacturing rate that would prevent sufficient second doses being available, and (2) the relative risk of X people not getting a second dose on schedule vs. X people waiting Y more weeks to get their first dose. The probably of (1) doesn't have to be zero for the math to still favor not stockpiling the second doses, and a lot of experts who have done the math are favoring no longer doing so.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on January 14, 2021, 10:34:30 AM
Quote from: Puget on January 14, 2021, 09:37:09 AM


Exactly right-- this is the same type of "moral hazard" argument that has been made about other risk mitigation public health interventions (e.g., HIV prevention, needle exchanges), and which has been repeatedly shown by research to be untrue. People who engage in risky behaviors do so whether or not you mitigate the risk, so it is always better to mitigate the risk.



Yeah, totally agree. The comparison to HIV prevention is something I've seen some very smart epi people make. The obvious example is abstinence based prevention strategies, but it actually goes far beyond that. Messages which focused solely on condoms also had real problems. That approach led to a lot of hesitancy in embracing drugs that dramatically reduce the risk of contracting HIV. What actually works is to give people the information about various ways to mitigate risk with behavioral changes and not to worry that if you use medical prevention strategies, that will result in people ignoring the behavioral advice.

Its weird to me that we get so hung up on the moral hazard thing with some things and not others. My car has automatic braking, but that doesn't make me tailgate people more or not pay attention when I'm on the freeway. It is an extra layer of protection if I make a mistake and we don't worry that its going to cause me to drive more recklessly.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 14, 2021, 12:09:24 PM
Had a Zoom session at lunchtime in which our state health department's immunologist spoke.  She spoke of how the vaccines were developed, how they're being distributed around the state, etc.  And fielded some questions.  It was interesting.  The health department's site has a map of pharmacies around the state where the vaccine is available.  We already knew which one had it locally, but will be checking back with interest to see when and if other local pharmacies are added.  I also found out where the nearest ones are to where Mom and Dad are.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on January 14, 2021, 06:09:47 PM
QuoteSame thing here. Basically this is a logistical problem. If you can be pretty sure, that supplies will allow you to give second doses to people on the scheduled timeline even if you don't reserve them, it would make a lot of sense to give more first doses out. The first dose seems to provide pretty substantial protection, and might keep people from getting seriously ill even if they do get COVID. We shouldn't be worrying that if we give more people this thing that will save lives, they will "use it irresponsibly." People are fully capable of understanding that while their risk is reduced somewhat, the protection isn't near as good till the second dose. People who are trying to be careful will continue to try to be careful with that information. If people aren't taking precautions, it won't make any difference anyway. Regardless they will be less likely to get COVID and we could potentially speed up vaccination overall, saving lots of lives.

This is part of my concern... You create MORE asymptomatic carriers!  But carriers that are now less worried about OTHERS. 
And that is only the assumption ... that the one dose folk will have SOME immunity... It may very well cause them to lower their guard and STILL end up in the ICU.

Didnt I see on the news that a congressman was just diagnosed EVEN THOUGH he had the SECOND dose 2 weeks ago?  How great is one shot, when some are sick even after 2, but not the full amount of time?

Bottom line... Im not upset that my concerns are ignored.  I am not pleased that the rules have changed mid stream.  I dont think that the problem is really that there are not enough doses available (as evidenced by the news that only 1/3 of the doses delivered have been 'put in arms'. )  Making more doses available doesnt seem to be the answer to the bottleneck. 

But hey... Im an anonymous contributor to a site made up of academics.... My advice is worth infinitely more than what you paid for it!  (as is yours!... but Infinitely more than worthless is still worthless!)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on January 14, 2021, 06:54:38 PM
Quote from: clean on January 14, 2021, 06:09:47 PM

And that is only the assumption ... that the one dose folk will have SOME immunity...

It is not an assumption, that is what the clinical trials found-- substantial reduction in cases in the vaccine compared to placebo group even before the second dose.

It is also very likely to reduce transmission-- that hasn't been definitively demonstrated yet, but a strong immune response generally means the virus is stopped from replicating much and thus is transmitted less.

It was also never the plan to keep stockpiling vaccine past phase 1.

And if you don't think supply is the problem, why are you so upset about a change that only affects supply?

You seem extremely anxious about all this, and that is understandable. But you aren't following the science or thinking through your objections very clearly here. There are plenty of other things to be legitimately upset about (starting with everyone who won't take any precautions and won't take the vaccine either).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on January 14, 2021, 08:52:01 PM
QuoteYou seem extremely anxious about all this, and that is understandable. But you aren't following the science or thinking through your objections very clearly here. There are plenty of other things to be legitimately upset about (starting with everyone who won't take any precautions and won't take the vaccine either).

Maybe it is my area... Wearing a mask is not entirely, but too often a Political Statement (infringing on their 'right' to NOT wear a mask - and denying them the 'right' to infect others).
Grocery Stores and Walmart have policies that REQUIRE masks, but DONT ENFORCE THEM! 
AS I have vented here or other places about them not following their own policies..., IF you complain to the stores, they simply say that they want their customers to be safe, BUT dont want to expose their employees/'partners' to potential physical violence. 

So, yes, maybe this is something that has been bothering me a bit disproportionately. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: rusaga on January 15, 2021, 12:28:13 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 14, 2021, 12:09:24 PM
Had a Zoom session at lunchtime in which our state health department's immunologist spoke.  She spoke of how the vaccines were developed, how they're being distributed around the state, etc.  And fielded some questions.  It was interesting.  The health department's site has a map of pharmacies around the state where the vaccine is available.  We already knew which one had it locally, but will be checking back with interest to see when and if other local pharmacies are added.  I also found out where the nearest ones are to where Mom and Dad are.
Hi everyone,
did the immunologist say about how long it will take to get the vaccine to achieve group immunity?
Thank you!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on January 15, 2021, 06:01:02 AM
Quote from: clean on January 14, 2021, 06:09:47 PM
QuoteSame thing here. Basically this is a logistical problem. If you can be pretty sure, that supplies will allow you to give second doses to people on the scheduled timeline even if you don't reserve them, it would make a lot of sense to give more first doses out. The first dose seems to provide pretty substantial protection, and might keep people from getting seriously ill even if they do get COVID. We shouldn't be worrying that if we give more people this thing that will save lives, they will "use it irresponsibly." People are fully capable of understanding that while their risk is reduced somewhat, the protection isn't near as good till the second dose. People who are trying to be careful will continue to try to be careful with that information. If people aren't taking precautions, it won't make any difference anyway. Regardless they will be less likely to get COVID and we could potentially speed up vaccination overall, saving lots of lives.

This is part of my concern... You create MORE asymptomatic carriers!  But carriers that are now less worried about OTHERS. 
And that is only the assumption ... that the one dose folk will have SOME immunity... It may very well cause them to lower their guard and STILL end up in the ICU.

Didnt I see on the news that a congressman was just diagnosed EVEN THOUGH he had the SECOND dose 2 weeks ago?  How great is one shot, when some are sick even after 2, but not the full amount of time?

Bottom line... Im not upset that my concerns are ignored.  I am not pleased that the rules have changed mid stream.  I dont think that the problem is really that there are not enough doses available (as evidenced by the news that only 1/3 of the doses delivered have been 'put in arms'. )  Making more doses available doesnt seem to be the answer to the bottleneck. 

But hey... Im an anonymous contributor to a site made up of academics.... My advice is worth infinitely more than what you paid for it!  (as is yours!... but Infinitely more than worthless is still worthless!)

95 percent effective still means that 5 percent of the people vaccinated would be able to get COVID even after the vaccine has had time to work. We should expect to hear stories about people who were vaccinated and still got sick. Seems like there is some evidence that those people probably will be less likely to get really sick, but I'm sure there will also be stories about people who got vaccinated and died. It won't mean there's any cause for alarm, it will just mean a bunch of people have got the vaccine and the expected rare events will be occurring. The preliminary evidence combined with experience from other vaccines, suggests that you would dramatically reduce the number of asymptomatic  and pre-symptomatic carriers, not increase it.

One of the frustrating things for me about so much of the discussion around COVID is that there is so much focus on individual choices and actions when so many people have very limited ability to make choices because of their financial and personal circumstances. People are working shoulder to shoulder in meat packing plants and everyone spends their time worrying about how risky it is to have coffee six with a friend outdoors. We should worry about whether we can get as many people as possible the two doses as quickly as we can and stop worrying about the rest.

I agree with you about the bottlenecks, but those have lots of causes. Not setting aside second doses isn't going to solve everything in isolation, but that doesn't mean it won't help.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on January 15, 2021, 06:17:38 AM
Quote from: clean on January 14, 2021, 08:52:01 PM
QuoteYou seem extremely anxious about all this, and that is understandable. But you aren't following the science or thinking through your objections very clearly here. There are plenty of other things to be legitimately upset about (starting with everyone who won't take any precautions and won't take the vaccine either).

Maybe it is my area... Wearing a mask is not entirely, but too often a Political Statement (infringing on their 'right' to NOT wear a mask - and denying them the 'right' to infect others).
Grocery Stores and Walmart have policies that REQUIRE masks, but DONT ENFORCE THEM! 
AS I have vented here or other places about them not following their own policies..., IF you complain to the stores, they simply say that they want their customers to be safe, BUT dont want to expose their employees/'partners' to potential physical violence. 

So, yes, maybe this is something that has been bothering me a bit disproportionately.

Those all fall under the "other things to be legitimately upset about". None of them have anything to do with whether all available doses should be distributed now vs. stockpiled. In fact, you are making my point for me: People who engage in risky behavior are going to do it with or without risk mitigation, so it is always the best public health policy to mitigate risk.

Plus, who gets a first dose faster if they are released now? Not the non-mask wearing shoppers most likely (even if eligible, they are likely to not want it), but rather the poor grocery workers and other front line workers who have no choice but to interact with them, and people over 65 and with risk factors. Let's get them at least partial protection as fast as possible.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on January 15, 2021, 07:17:12 AM
I am not in my "home" state and won't be for several more months, and can't get the vaccine where I currently am, as I am not a resident.  I could get it at home, but the logistical difficulties of returning and then coming back are......W need a NATIONAL plan, not by state or county....or whim.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on January 15, 2021, 07:28:17 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on January 15, 2021, 07:17:12 AM
I am not in my "home" state and won't be for several more months, and can't get the vaccine where I currently am, as I am not a resident.  I could get it at home, but the logistical difficulties of returning and then coming back are......W need a NATIONAL plan, not by state or county....or whim.

Are you sure about that? The details vary enormously, but in some states non residents can be eligible.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 15, 2021, 08:11:20 AM
Quote from: rusaga on January 15, 2021, 12:28:13 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 14, 2021, 12:09:24 PM
Had a Zoom session at lunchtime in which our state health department's immunologist spoke.  She spoke of how the vaccines were developed, how they're being distributed around the state, etc.  And fielded some questions.  It was interesting.  The health department's site has a map of pharmacies around the state where the vaccine is available.  We already knew which one had it locally, but will be checking back with interest to see when and if other local pharmacies are added.  I also found out where the nearest ones are to where Mom and Dad are.
Hi everyone,
did the immunologist say about how long it will take to get the vaccine to achieve group immunity?
Thank you!

All we know at this point is that it will be several months yet before the vaccine becomes available without restriction.  Which means we're going to be far into the year before we see the pandemic truly receding.  I know that libraries around the country are assuming that our summer reading programs will still  have to be virtual.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Harlow2 on January 15, 2021, 08:38:31 AM
According to the Washington Post the supposed reserve of vaccine being held back does not exist "and was already exhausted when the ....administration vowed to release it. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/01/15/trump-vaccine-reserve-used-up/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on January 15, 2021, 09:01:37 AM
QuoteI am not in my "home" state and won't be for several more months, and can't get the vaccine where I currently am, as I am not a resident.

My county has/is 'a hub'. The news reports that as the vaccine was purchased by the government there are NO residency restrictions.  The hub is to distribute to anyone, regardless of residence. The news specified that IF a Canadian or a Mexican national came, they would get vaccinated. 

The national news had an article about an elderly couple living near their county's hub that can not seem to get registered, but watches all sorts of out of state license plates go through the location.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on January 15, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
QuoteThose all fall under the "other things to be legitimately upset about". None of them have anything to do with whether all available doses should be distributed now vs. stockpiled. In fact, you are making my point for me: People who engage in risky behavior are going to do it with or without risk mitigation, so it is always the best public health policy to mitigate risk.

The bottom line is that I believe that the vaccine should be given AS DESIGNED. I believe that there are risks of unforeseen complications because of the lack of testing (hence unforeseen).  and In Conclusion.... Dale Carnegie said, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still". 

What I think about is that the vaccine production began months before the approval was given so an inventory was available. Are they able to double that inventory in 3/4 weeks in order to ensure that people get the second dose AS Designed? 

Im going to  agree to disagree at this point.  I will circle back in 3 or 4 weeks and see what the news is reporting about the availability of the second dose and the ability to continue giving the first shot.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 15, 2021, 10:35:42 AM
Quote from: clean on January 15, 2021, 09:01:37 AM
QuoteI am not in my "home" state and won't be for several more months, and can't get the vaccine where I currently am, as I am not a resident.

My county has/is 'a hub'. The news reports that as the vaccine was purchased by the government there are NO residency restrictions.  The hub is to distribute to anyone, regardless of residence. The news specified that IF a Canadian or a Mexican national came, they would get vaccinated. 

The national news had an article about an elderly couple living near their county's hub that can not seem to get registered, but watches all sorts of out of state license plates go through the location.

There have been complaints in the news about "vaccine tourism" in Florida.  The Governor there says it's mostly "snowbirds" who are technically out-of-state residents but spend the winter in Florida.  If the elderly couple is in a place that gets a lot of winter residents that may be what they're seeing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 15, 2021, 10:42:16 AM
Alma Mater's faculty were told a couple of days ago that there would be a special vaccination clinic at a local pharmacy for them.  Then they found out that 900 doses had been administered to others at that pharmacy, and there was no vaccine for them.  They seem to be under the impression that 900 somebodies jumped the line in front of them.  I'm more inclined to suspect some miscommunication somewhere.  I'm guessing that they were supposed to get their turn next week, when teachers in the state in general become eligible.


We're going to be hearing lots and lots and LOTS of complaints about line jumping, misunderstandings about who was scheduled to go when, and general allegations of unfairness regarding vaccinations in the weeks and months ahead.  Some of them probably true, some just misunderstandings, and some products of the rumor mill.  It's inevitable when we have a huge, mistake-prone enterprise going on in a nation where most of us are in the habit of feeling unjustly put-upon by those around us.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on January 15, 2021, 11:31:44 AM
CNBC is reporting "There is NO Vaccine Reserve"

The Gov. of Oregon reports, "Last night, I received disturbing news, confirmed to me directly by General Perna of Operation Warp Speed:  States will not be receiving increased shipments of vaccines from the national stockpile next week, because there is no federal reserve of doses"  (Jan 15, 2021)

Further the reporter stated that The Washington Post is reporting today that the government had already transitioned into releasing the second dose. 

The vaccine will be released as it is available from the manufacturer with priority going to those needing the second dose, and then those needing the first dose.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/vaccine-reserve-was-already-exhausted-when-trump-administration-vowed-to-release-it-dashing-hopes-of-expanded-access/ar-BB1cML9W?li=BBorjTa&ocid=Peregrine (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/vaccine-reserve-was-already-exhausted-when-trump-administration-vowed-to-release-it-dashing-hopes-of-expanded-access/ar-BB1cML9W?li=BBorjTa&ocid=Peregrine)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on January 15, 2021, 11:51:33 AM
Quote from: clean on January 15, 2021, 11:31:44 AM
CNBC is reporting "There is NO Vaccine Reserve"

The Gov. of Oregon reports, "Last night, I received disturbing news, confirmed to me directly by General Perna of Operation Warp Speed:  States will not be receiving increased shipments of vaccines from the national stockpile next week, because there is no federal reserve of doses"  (Jan 15, 2021)

Further the reporter stated that The Washington Post is reporting today that the government had already transitioned into releasing the second dose. 

The vaccine will be released as it is available from the manufacturer with priority going to those needing the second dose, and then those needing the first dose.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/vaccine-reserve-was-already-exhausted-when-trump-administration-vowed-to-release-it-dashing-hopes-of-expanded-access/ar-BB1cML9W?li=BBorjTa&ocid=Peregrine (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/vaccine-reserve-was-already-exhausted-when-trump-administration-vowed-to-release-it-dashing-hopes-of-expanded-access/ar-BB1cML9W?li=BBorjTa&ocid=Peregrine)

Worth clarifying that this isn't saying there isn't going to be enough for second doses. Basically, bizarrely before they made this whole announcement, they had already decided that they were sure enough of production that they didn't need to hang on to doses. Fine, but, they didn't actually communicate that to states and clearly there's no coordination here.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 15, 2021, 12:45:41 PM
Reminds me of switching to a reserve gas tank only to find that the reserve tank was being quietly used up all along already.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on January 15, 2021, 01:14:17 PM
Nah, with stocks and flows, the precise analogy is the bathtub, with water flowing in and out. If the bathtub is empty, water can still flow out if there's water flowing in.

https://www.google.com/search?q=stock+and+flow+diagrams+(bathtub+model)&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALeKk01cYcvB9j8Jcn0sI5QKyypcvHXH5A:1610745418821&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=AaBVDhQDFkdX6M%252CHtq3SBTTl_8rvM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRqw54qGhlNIqsUkW157Kzbe1KClg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi264uk7p7uAhVt1lkKHZNGD7QQ9QF6BAgEEAE&biw=1920&bih=938#imgrc=swloO-5RdvdClM (https://www.google.com/search?q=stock+and+flow+diagrams+(bathtub+model)&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALeKk01cYcvB9j8Jcn0sI5QKyypcvHXH5A:1610745418821&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=AaBVDhQDFkdX6M%252CHtq3SBTTl_8rvM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRqw54qGhlNIqsUkW157Kzbe1KClg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi264uk7p7uAhVt1lkKHZNGD7QQ9QF6BAgEEAE&biw=1920&bih=938#imgrc=swloO-5RdvdClM)

There is water flowing in, isn't there?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on January 15, 2021, 01:33:11 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 15, 2021, 12:45:41 PM
Reminds me of switching to a reserve gas tank only to find that the reserve tank was being quietly used up all along already.

This is (in part) why we abandoned reserve air in SCUBA tanks years ago.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on January 15, 2021, 11:52:44 PM
WRT Wallyworld and similar places not enforcing their supposedly clear customer must wear mask policies, it is certainly true that the local WM here in Rusty City emphatically does not enforce this policy, and it is pretty normative for many customers to at least not mask their nose, if not their mouth as well.   Almost everyone has a mask, of course, but if you do not cover up your nose AND mouth, it is essentially a useless necklace.   What are you all seeing where you are, wrt private companies' enforcement of masking policies?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on January 16, 2021, 12:57:50 AM
University is on list to get vaccines, but doesn't know when yet. Vaccination process discussed in virtual town hall, with explanation of phases. Q&A about how they're identifying people for 1b, so people with health conditions can get on list. Response was that it's honor system per state because too hard to set up and enforce enforcement system while trying to get people vaccinated quickly.

Never thought state would trust to honor system for anything. Not disapproving, just surprised.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 16, 2021, 06:18:43 AM
My parents got a mysterious phone call that said it was something to do with their vaccination.  I don't know all the details.  Apparently it was some kind of elder-targeting scam.  People with older relatives need to be sure that they are alert to scammers trying to invoke "vaccination" to collect personal information or money.  They're going to be coming out of the woodwork now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on January 16, 2021, 07:27:27 AM
Quote from: Vkw10 on January 16, 2021, 12:57:50 AM
University is on list to get vaccines, but doesn't know when yet. Vaccination process discussed in virtual town hall, with explanation of phases. Q&A about how they're identifying people for 1b, so people with health conditions can get on list. Response was that it's honor system per state because too hard to set up and enforce enforcement system while trying to get people vaccinated quickly.

Never thought state would trust to honor system for anything. Not disapproving, just surprised.

That's good to hear. Requiring paper work is just going to slow things down.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morden on January 16, 2021, 09:32:10 AM
QuoteMy parents got a mysterious phone call that said it was something to do with their vaccination.  I don't know all the details.  Apparently it was some kind of elder-targeting scam.  People with older relatives need to be sure that they are alert to scammers trying to invoke "vaccination" to collect personal information or money.  They're going to be coming out of the woodwork now.
In London, a scammer got money from a 92 year old woman AND injected her with something.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-55577426
I think they found him and charged him with fraud and assault.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: histchick on January 17, 2021, 09:47:42 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 15, 2021, 11:52:44 PM
WRT Wallyworld and similar places not enforcing their supposedly clear customer must wear mask policies, it is certainly true that the local WM here in Rusty City emphatically does not enforce this policy, and it is pretty normative for many customers to at least not mask their nose, if not their mouth as well.   Almost everyone has a mask, of course, but if you do not cover up your nose AND mouth, it is essentially a useless necklace.   What are you all seeing where you are, wrt private companies' enforcement of masking policies?
Here in my part of the rural South, we have a citywide mask ordinance that is virtually unenforceable.  My husband and I have done nothing but curbside pickup because even stores with mask policies do not enforce them, and many shoppers are maskless.  Okay, fine, we can deal with that. 

What really got me riled is the experiences I've had at medical appointments.  Not patients (mostly), mind you, but employees.  That's when I totally lost it.  It was only a couple of people, but those couple of people could have caused me or members of my family a lot of unnecessary suffering.  Idiots.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on January 17, 2021, 06:48:17 PM
I assume you have never complained at a retail establishment where mask ordinances were not enforced?   But what happened at the med office, when you 'totally lost it', which I assume includes having complained?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on January 18, 2021, 05:30:34 AM
histchick and K16........  I, too, live in the rural south and local stores, including Lowe's and Walmart, will not enforce mask wearing.  I have walked out of a number of small, local businesses because of non-compliance.  And I have used my state's online reporting site.  Last spring, I also walked out of a doctor's office because of blatant, deliberate, non compliance......the doc didn't believe in covid.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: histchick on January 18, 2021, 09:15:38 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on January 18, 2021, 05:30:34 AM
histchick and K16........  I, too, live in the rural south and local stores, including Lowe's and Walmart, will not enforce mask wearing.  I have walked out of a number of small, local businesses because of non-compliance.  And I have used my state's online reporting site.  Last spring, I also walked out of a doctor's office because of blatant, deliberate, non compliance......the doc didn't believe in covid.
Since the pandemic started, we have only shopped curbside, because we knew that many (most?) of our neighbors would not wear masks, and that local businesses would not enforce.  In that sense, then, we did not complain to Walmart or Kroger, because they provided a relatively efficient alternative for shoppers like us who did not want to go inside. 

At the dentist a few weeks ago, I came out of the exam and sat down to finish some paperwork when I saw that one of the front desk workers was not wearing a mask.  Given how good the office procedure has been (you have to call before entering the building, masks are required, etc.) I was surprised to see this.  A colleague of theirs died due to COVID-19 complications just a few weeks before.  I complained to the employee working at the front door on my way out.  My husband had an appointment two days later, so he talked to to the dentist about it, and got the sense that this employee might not be working there any longer. 

The doctor's office is another issue.  I like my doctor all right, but the rest of the setup is another issue entirely.  Masks are required, but the waiting rooms are crammed with folks, and there's no good way to distance.  The nurse who gave us our flu shots took off her mask while speaking with us in a small, enclosed room, and we just got the hell out of there. 

The issue for both of us is that this is a really small place, and the mask issue is extremely political.  Add that to the fact that my husband is well known in the community, and it gets a bit dicey for us.  The last name is uncommon so even if I say or do something, it will get connected back to him. That could harm the campus.  So, we just stay home unless it's medically necessary for us to go out. 

nebo, if I had experienced the same issue with my doctor (not believing in COVID), I would have not gone back.  I don't know what else I would have done.  I sympathize with the managers of local businesses who want to enforce policies but are afraid of violence.   
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on January 18, 2021, 10:42:32 AM
I'm sorry and angry to hear about so many inconsiderate, idiotic people who won't take simple precautions that would keep themselves healthy, as well as others.

P.C. means "polite and considerate" to my mind.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on January 18, 2021, 10:52:14 AM
We have about 95% of our groceries delivered. I may head out once a month to the food store (in the early morning) to stock up on things that we cannot have delivered, or are just too expensive to be delivered.

The last few times I went to the food store early in the morning (8-9am), everyone was masked. Later in the day the masks come off.

I don't understand the whole 'masks are tyranny' bs.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on January 18, 2021, 10:53:53 AM
Here in Northern Virginia mask wearing is well nigh universal. Only my barber is systematically non-compliant!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 19, 2021, 07:20:53 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on January 18, 2021, 05:30:34 AM
histchick and K16........  I, too, live in the rural south and local stores, including Lowe's and Walmart, will not enforce mask wearing.  I have walked out of a number of small, local businesses because of non-compliance.  And I have used my state's online reporting site.  Last spring, I also walked out of a doctor's office because of blatant, deliberate, non compliance......the doc didn't believe in covid.

I live in another rural southern area (rural enough to be an hour from the nearest Lowe's), and I see a lot of spotty mask wearing.  However, retail and other public service staff are mostly wearing masks.  Our local doctors are very much behind it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 20, 2021, 10:07:14 AM
Meeting with the Mayor tomorrow about setting up proper social distancing, etc. protocols for the next City Council meeting.  Looks like we'll have to specially disinfect the public restrooms, shut down normal library business an hour before closing time, and provide a portable microphone setup so that everybody present can hear.  We can't move the built-in lectern mike from the library Community Room where they normally hold their meetings.

It also looks like I'll be obligated to stay there myself for however long it takes to complete the meeting.  I hate having to sit through Council meetings!  I keep up with what happens in them, but the actual experience of being there for the whole thing is a drag.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on January 20, 2021, 10:25:48 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on January 18, 2021, 10:52:14 AM
The last few times I went to the food store early in the morning (8-9am), everyone was masked. Later in the day the masks come off.

This has been my experience in grocery stores and Walmart here also (semi-rural southern US). Going early in the morning is significantly better than going any time after 10.

Lowe's is awful all day, though. I don't think anyone who shops at our local store has even heard of the pandemic.

AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on January 20, 2021, 05:01:32 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 20, 2021, 10:07:14 AM
Meeting with the Mayor tomorrow about setting up proper social distancing, etc. protocols for the next City Council meeting.  Looks like we'll have to specially disinfect the public restrooms, shut down normal library business an hour before closing time, and provide a portable microphone setup so that everybody present can hear.  We can't move the built-in lectern mike from the library Community Room where they normally hold their meetings.

It also looks like I'll be obligated to stay there myself for however long it takes to complete the meeting.  I hate having to sit through Council meetings!  I keep up with what happens in them, but the actual experience of being there for the whole thing is a drag.

I've sat through board meetings like that. Be glad you don't have to do a tape transcription after the meeting, listening to the whole torturous thing again.

And weren't these the clowns who wouldn't mask up? I'd make signs denying access without a face covering, just for your own protection!

Call out for dinner, too, if you'd otherwise go home to eat. That's asking a lot.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 21, 2021, 07:35:59 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 20, 2021, 05:01:32 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 20, 2021, 10:07:14 AM
Meeting with the Mayor tomorrow about setting up proper social distancing, etc. protocols for the next City Council meeting.  Looks like we'll have to specially disinfect the public restrooms, shut down normal library business an hour before closing time, and provide a portable microphone setup so that everybody present can hear.  We can't move the built-in lectern mike from the library Community Room where they normally hold their meetings.

It also looks like I'll be obligated to stay there myself for however long it takes to complete the meeting.  I hate having to sit through Council meetings!  I keep up with what happens in them, but the actual experience of being there for the whole thing is a drag.

I've sat through board meetings like that. Be glad you don't have to do a tape transcription after the meeting, listening to the whole torturous thing again.

And weren't these the clowns who wouldn't mask up? I'd make signs denying access without a face covering, just for your own protection!

Call out for dinner, too, if you'd otherwise go home to eat. That's asking a lot.

M.

I think you're misunderstanding the Mayor.  She has been taking the COVID emergency very seriously since assuming office in the middle of it last year.  Last month she was facing an awkward, essential year-end budget meeting with a lot of moving parts.  I think she felt overwhelmed enough without also trying any sudden dramatic changes in the venue.  I don't agree with that judgement call on her part, but I think I understand why she made it. 

Anyway last month they got away with it.  This month she doesn't intend to take any chances.  The meeting they're planning for next week is going to be very by-the-guidelines--distancing, masks, health quizzes before anybody is let in, people guided to socially distanced seats, and public restrooms sprayed both before and after the event.  We tested the old portable mike system yesterday to make sure it still works.  It ought to be a very safe meeting. 

Still wish I didn't have to be there through the whole thing.  If I'd thought about it in time, I could have written up my annual Librarian's Report to the Council and gotten it on the meeting agenda.  Two birds with one stone.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on January 21, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Oh, good. Glad to be wrong.

Stay safe.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on January 21, 2021, 07:09:58 PM
Gov. Hogan wants to have hybrid learning for MD's public schools by March 1st:
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2021/01/maryland-coronavirus-update-january-21/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2021/01/maryland-coronavirus-update-january-21/)
From WTOP Radio online (1/21/21)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 22, 2021, 07:52:48 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 21, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Oh, good. Glad to be wrong.

Stay safe.

M.

It's refreshing to hear somebody on this board who's glad to be wrong when there's a good reason for it.  Wish more posters had such a generous attitude. 

I can think of quite a few occasions when I've been glad to be wrong.  Here recently I've had some people (not on this board) whom I've been pleasantly surprised to learn that I had misjudged.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on January 25, 2021, 10:29:49 AM
Current chatter is about better masks and wearing two masks.

Why can't the US manufacture a massive supply of N95s in the US?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on January 25, 2021, 11:35:09 AM
Quote
Why can't the US manufacture a massive supply of N95s in the US?

I bet we can, but not for a price that can compete with Asia. 

60 minutes had a show where a company in TX offered to produce the masks in quantity, but wanted the government to guarantee a minimum quantity. The government would not commit to the quantity, and that made the investment in the machines too risky.  So it CAN be done, but not without some assurances to the firms sticking out their necks.

AND N95s! 
Those are now one of the biggest group of fakes out there now!  I was given some that a coworker got from Costco.  No way that they are real!  I am not able to find the link this moment, but an N95 mask has certain qualities (including the placement of the straps).

So IF you see one, buyer be ware!! 

(I have p95 mask that I wear for most uses. I got it 2 years or so ago when I was doing wood work and yard work.  comparing that 3M product to the one from costco?  No comparison!) 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: writingprof on January 25, 2021, 02:59:50 PM
Why is "China virus" racist when "Brazil variant," currently including in a Washington Post headline, is not?  I'm (kind of) seriously asking.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on January 25, 2021, 03:44:08 PM
There is a long history of naming microbes after the locations of their major outbreaks. And a long history of these names being used in a derogatory fashion. Hence syphilis being known as "the French disease" by the British, and the 1918 flu being called the Spanish Flu because it was first reported by Spanish news outlets.
  The move away from this naming convention really dates back to the 2003 Flu Pandemic which CNN called the Mexican Flu until several government officials from Mexico called and complained. Only then did Sanjay Gupta get up to speed with H1N1 etc.
  Strictly speaking we call it the Brazil variant should be called the P.1 variant. But that's not very catchy for the news media.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on January 25, 2021, 03:53:53 PM
Here is a description of the murderous 1918 flu epidemic:

https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence (https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence)

Do we know a lot more about dealing with epidemics than 100 years ago? About stopping them?

Discuss.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on January 25, 2021, 04:14:57 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 25, 2021, 03:53:53 PM
Here is a description of the murderous 1918 flu epidemic:

https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence (https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence)

Do we know a lot more about dealing with epidemics than 100 years ago? About stopping them?

Discuss.

I think we know more, but it dosnt necessarily translate into practice in many places. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 25, 2021, 06:27:46 PM
Quote from: mythbuster on January 25, 2021, 03:44:08 PM

  Strictly speaking we call it the Brazil variant should be called the P.1 variant. But that's not very catchy for the news media.

Pretty catching, though!

(Sorry. I know.)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 26, 2021, 07:40:00 AM
We have our game plan in place for the City Council meeting at the library this evening.  The Council and Mayor will be up front socially distanced from each other.  Which basically means that each one of them will have their own table.  They're setting the tables up an hour before the meeting begins.  We'll have the whole front of the building up by the service area lined with tables.  Hopefully there won't be too many patrons needing assistance this evening.  The staff have been wringing their hands about that upcoming inconvenience since yesterday afternoon. 

Socially distanced chairs for the public will be set up.  That will involve moving some furniture and displays.  I plan to do that myself after lunch.  An EMT will sit at the entrance to screen everybody who comes in, along with masks and hand sanitizer.  Somebody will walk the attendees to their seats.  We'll have hand sanitizer and masks at the front.  The public restrooms will be sprayed down before and after the event. 

I'll be there until we're all done.  Which will probably be a while.  The Mayor has a long "State of the City" speech to deliver.  What with COVID and the mass layoffs by our main employer last year, there's a lot to talk about.  Our head of Parks and Recreation--who's been doing quite an enthusiastic job--seems to think she's about to lose her job to budget cuts.  That would be really sad.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on January 26, 2021, 09:32:03 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 25, 2021, 03:53:53 PM
Here is a description of the murderous 1918 flu epidemic:

https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence (https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence)

Do we know a lot more about dealing with epidemics than 100 years ago? About stopping them?

Discuss.

I have my non-majors discuss this topic.  We have some of the same tools (soap, news media, trained medical staff, social distancing) and new ones (wide acceptance of germ theory, a vaccine, respiratory therapists, ventilators, etc.).  The hard lesson is that we know what we ought to do (stay home, don't socialize, etc.), but we are very bad about doing it. 
What's worrying is that we really didn't "beat" the 1918 flu.  It circulated for 30+ years as a seasonal disease until it was displaced by a more virulent strain.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on January 26, 2021, 01:58:11 PM
Quote from: the_geneticist on January 26, 2021, 09:32:03 AM
The hard lesson is that most we know what we ought to do (stay home, don't socialize, etc.), but too many we are very bad about doing it. 

Friendly amendment.

Signed,
Sacrificing to do the right thing while behavior of many others is ignorant or selfish.



Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 27, 2021, 06:37:10 AM
The Council meeting last night went well.  All safe meeting protocols were practiced, and everything went smoothly.  One Council member was attending remotely.  When they held their role-call votes you heard that odd, disembodied voice each time.  The Mayor's State of the City address, which was live-streamed, was pretty good.  People will be annoyed to learn that we are about to have a hike in our water rates.  But what are you gonna do--expenses keep going up.

Disinfection and take-down after the meeting went smoothly and efficiently, and I got home to have supper only an hour late.  This morning first thing the janitor and I finished moving our furniture and display stands back out like they  were.  Guess we'll be okay doing this once a month for as long as COVID rules remain in effect.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: sprout on January 27, 2021, 09:57:57 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 26, 2021, 07:40:00 AM
Our head of Parks and Recreation--who's been doing quite an enthusiastic job...

Is her name Leslie, by any chance...?

*ducks*
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 27, 2021, 10:25:20 AM
Quote from: sprout on January 27, 2021, 09:57:57 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 26, 2021, 07:40:00 AM
Our head of Parks and Recreation--who's been doing quite an enthusiastic job...

Is her name Leslie, by any chance...?

*ducks*


*aims lower*


Turns out she was not laid off.  Apparently she resigned for personal reasons and took another job.  She still plans to volunteer to help organize some of the civic events she was already helping with.  And to complete the downtown mural she has been painting.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 01:51:34 PM
Quote from: the_geneticist on January 26, 2021, 09:32:03 AM

I have my non-majors discuss this topic.  We have some of the same tools (soap, news media, trained medical staff, social distancing) and new ones (wide acceptance of germ theory, a vaccine, respiratory therapists, ventilators, etc.).  The hard lesson is that we know what we ought to do (stay home, don't socialize, etc.), but we are very bad about doing it. 
What's worrying is that we really didn't "beat" the 1918 flu.  It circulated for 30+ years as a seasonal disease until it was displaced by a more virulent strain.

Lots of people have to leave home to work. Economic disparities mean those people are more likely to live with more people who have health conditions that make them more vulnerable. Thinking about everything in terms of individual choices is one of the huge mistakes of this whole thing. Another is assuming that socialization is optional and failing to provide good messaging about how people can do it in safer ways.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on January 27, 2021, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 01:51:34 PM
Quote from: the_geneticist on January 26, 2021, 09:32:03 AM

I have my non-majors discuss this topic.  We have some of the same tools (soap, news media, trained medical staff, social distancing) and new ones (wide acceptance of germ theory, a vaccine, respiratory therapists, ventilators, etc.).  The hard lesson is that we know what we ought to do (stay home, don't socialize, etc.), but we are very bad about doing it. 
What's worrying is that we really didn't "beat" the 1918 flu.  It circulated for 30+ years as a seasonal disease until it was displaced by a more virulent strain.

Lots of people have to leave home to work. Economic disparities mean those people are more likely to live with more people who have health conditions that make them more vulnerable. Thinking about everything in terms of individual choices is one of the huge mistakes of this whole thing. Another is assuming that socialization is optional and failing to provide good messaging about how people can do it in safer ways.

True, but in this particular point in time there is a huge segment of the population that simply dosn't believe.  This has been further fanned by politicians and the prevelence of false information.  So yes, even if everyone were on board there are social dynamics that make it harder for some people to follow the advice, but as it stands that is not the main problem.

There are many countries that have demonstrated that if everyone works together Covid can be largely controlled.  These countries all have people in these same jobs and situations (to varying degrees), but can manage.  The science is pretty clear, so it seems to me that the main problem is more related to personal choice in this case.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 04:56:11 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 27, 2021, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 01:51:34 PM
Quote from: the_geneticist on January 26, 2021, 09:32:03 AM

I have my non-majors discuss this topic.  We have some of the same tools (soap, news media, trained medical staff, social distancing) and new ones (wide acceptance of germ theory, a vaccine, respiratory therapists, ventilators, etc.).  The hard lesson is that we know what we ought to do (stay home, don't socialize, etc.), but we are very bad about doing it. 
What's worrying is that we really didn't "beat" the 1918 flu.  It circulated for 30+ years as a seasonal disease until it was displaced by a more virulent strain.

Lots of people have to leave home to work. Economic disparities mean those people are more likely to live with more people who have health conditions that make them more vulnerable. Thinking about everything in terms of individual choices is one of the huge mistakes of this whole thing. Another is assuming that socialization is optional and failing to provide good messaging about how people can do it in safer ways.

True, but in this particular point in time there is a huge segment of the population that simply dosn't believe.  This has been further fanned by politicians and the prevelence of false information.  So yes, even if everyone were on board there are social dynamics that make it harder for some people to follow the advice, but as it stands that is not the main problem.

There are many countries that have demonstrated that if everyone works together Covid can be largely controlled.  These countries all have people in these same jobs and situations (to varying degrees), but can manage.  The science is pretty clear, so it seems to me that the main problem is more related to personal choice in this case.

There's some truth to that, but those countries have also done things to help with those social dynamics. I don't think the two things are totally unrelated.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on January 27, 2021, 05:01:51 PM
The weird thing is that there is no obvious correlation between what sophisticated countries have done and their corona death rates.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on January 27, 2021, 06:00:57 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 27, 2021, 05:01:51 PM
The weird thing is that there is no obvious correlation between what sophisticated countries have done and their corona death rates.

Define "sophisticated." If you mean "rich" then that's clearly not true - Taiwan has been a tremendous success, probably the most successful place on the planet, and it took vigorous action early, which pretty much no Western country other than New Zealand did, and had actually prepared for a pandemic (again, not much of that in the West - in terms of preparation the West has been pretty unsophisticated). Early action matters - countries that took vigorous early action got it under control. Also, actual compliance matters, not just nominal government action - if (part of) the population resists measures to the point of setting fire to testing centers (as in the Netherlands) then sensible nominal measures are not very likely to work. On the other hand, if the public voluntarily largely complies with suitable measures like wearing facemasks, as in Japan, then the pandemic can be controlled without Draconian nominal government action.

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 27, 2021, 04:00:14 PM
There are many countries that have demonstrated that if everyone works together Covid can be largely controlled.  These countries all have people in these same jobs and situations (to varying degrees), but can manage.  The science is pretty clear, so it seems to me that the main problem is more related to personal choice in this case.

This. Countries that have controlled it successfully include developing countries like Vietnam and, to a lesser extent, Uruguay. I do not believe these jobs and situations are somehow more severe in the West than in developing countries that have successfully handled the pandemic.
It's not that it's somehow not clear what to do to tame the pandemic. The means of doing so have been clear for months. Some, like social distancing or travel restrictions, were obvious from the start. Again, where people overwhelmingly want to comply with measures to protect themselves and others, the pandemic is under control, the economy has re-opened, etc. Where large numbers of people defy those measures, even to the point of setting testing facilities on fire, or even setting clinics on fire (Mexico), the pandemic is far from tamed, and wealth offers little protection.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on January 27, 2021, 06:02:22 PM
Quote from: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 04:56:11 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 27, 2021, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 01:51:34 PM
Quote from: the_geneticist on January 26, 2021, 09:32:03 AM

I have my non-majors discuss this topic.  We have some of the same tools (soap, news media, trained medical staff, social distancing) and new ones (wide acceptance of germ theory, a vaccine, respiratory therapists, ventilators, etc.).  The hard lesson is that we know what we ought to do (stay home, don't socialize, etc.), but we are very bad about doing it. 
What's worrying is that we really didn't "beat" the 1918 flu.  It circulated for 30+ years as a seasonal disease until it was displaced by a more virulent strain.

Lots of people have to leave home to work. Economic disparities mean those people are more likely to live with more people who have health conditions that make them more vulnerable. Thinking about everything in terms of individual choices is one of the huge mistakes of this whole thing. Another is assuming that socialization is optional and failing to provide good messaging about how people can do it in safer ways.

True, but in this particular point in time there is a huge segment of the population that simply dosn't believe.  This has been further fanned by politicians and the prevelence of false information.  So yes, even if everyone were on board there are social dynamics that make it harder for some people to follow the advice, but as it stands that is not the main problem.

There are many countries that have demonstrated that if everyone works together Covid can be largely controlled.  These countries all have people in these same jobs and situations (to varying degrees), but can manage.  The science is pretty clear, so it seems to me that the main problem is more related to personal choice in this case.

There's some truth to that, but those countries have also done things to help with those social dynamics. I don't think the two things are totally unrelated.

Yes, definitely.  I am in Canada, where there has been quite a bit of support and our deaths per capita are less than half that south of the border.  There are many other factors at play, but I agree that this is an important factor.  Hard to stay home when you need to eat.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 29, 2021, 07:10:29 AM
Our county's number of active cases has declined a good deal in the past week.  We're finally past that long holiday season spike.  I hope we don't have another surge coming.

We now have 22 deaths in the county.  One was a woman my age (early 50s).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on February 15, 2021, 07:06:25 AM
Editorial saying that CDC's guidelines for school re-openings are too restrictive and not based on science:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/12/cdc-report-schools-problems/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/12/cdc-report-schools-problems/).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on February 25, 2021, 01:12:51 PM
QuoteContrary to what many believe, remote instruction did not decrease county-level incidence during the fall surge, when compared to in-person instruction.
https://twitter.com/youyanggu/status/1363920599064674305

This leaves me perplexed. Was there good scientific evidence for a move to remote instruction in the fall?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on February 25, 2021, 08:02:47 PM
Quote from: downer on February 25, 2021, 01:12:51 PM
QuoteContrary to what many believe, remote instruction did not decrease county-level incidence during the fall surge, when compared to in-person instruction.
https://twitter.com/youyanggu/status/1363920599064674305

This leaves me perplexed. Was there good scientific evidence for a move to remote instruction in the fall?

My understanding is that there was good scientific evidence to prevent people from congregating in enclosed spaces (e.g. classrooms). What actually occurred, though, was regardless of what was happening in classrooms (or not, because classes were remote), students continued to do what students do: congregate in each others' rooms, go to parties, etc. My son created a pod of, I think, 6 students and did just fine. My niece created a "pod" of 30+ students. Unsurprisingly, she got COVID.

In general, very few cases of transmission have been traced to classrooms, at least on my campus and at the ones my kids attend. Plenty have been traced to off-campus activities. Going to remote instruction but keeping dorms and frats open was evidently a bad idea.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on February 26, 2021, 10:11:20 AM
Quote from: pgher on February 25, 2021, 08:02:47 PM
Quote from: downer on February 25, 2021, 01:12:51 PM
QuoteContrary to what many believe, remote instruction did not decrease county-level incidence during the fall surge, when compared to in-person instruction.
https://twitter.com/youyanggu/status/1363920599064674305

This leaves me perplexed. Was there good scientific evidence for a move to remote instruction in the fall?

My understanding is that there was good scientific evidence to prevent people from congregating in enclosed spaces (e.g. classrooms). What actually occurred, though, was regardless of what was happening in classrooms (or not, because classes were remote), students continued to do what students do: congregate in each others' rooms, go to parties, etc. My son created a pod of, I think, 6 students and did just fine. My niece created a "pod" of 30+ students. Unsurprisingly, she got COVID.

In general, very few cases of transmission have been traced to classrooms, at least on my campus and at the ones my kids attend. Plenty have been traced to off-campus activities. Going to remote instruction but keeping dorms and frats open was evidently a bad idea.
Lots of schools are planning to reopen the dorms and dining for Fall.  The reasons are complicated, but I'm sure the anticipated revenue is a major contributing factor.  And students want the "college experience" of living on campus, eating with friends, etc.  I hope that we can get enough folks vaccinated that Fall won't be an utter disaster.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on February 26, 2021, 11:08:01 AM
Word out today that we will revert to the 2019 course modes.  So no more hybrid classes.  We will still offer some fully online classes, but no more hybrid ones. 

Plans are for staff to return from remote work in July. 

No word about graduation yet, but I suspect that we will have anohter virtual one this May. 

No word about the start/end dates.  I was a fan of ending face to face instruction by Thanksgiving.  I hope that remains.  I suppose that I can make my schedule so that it works out that way IF they university doesnt make 'the right decision'. 

As we dont know when we will end, we dont know when we will start.  I suppose that there is/was a 5 year schedule, so I suppose that there exists a plan on the books somewhere!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on March 04, 2021, 09:33:36 AM
Covid-19 and Obesity: The 2021 Atlas executive summary (http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wof-files/2722_WOF_-_COVID-19_and_Obesity-ExecSummary_WEB.pdf)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on March 06, 2021, 06:33:50 PM
So, I was on campus the other day and I saw someone teaching without a mask or face shield. Masks are required in all campus buildings. There are even signs on the doors. I can't think of an exception to this...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 06, 2021, 06:54:16 PM
Report sighting to his/her dean? 

Perhaps take a picture?  Print and then send to dean on paper (no electronic trail!)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: lightning on March 06, 2021, 07:09:03 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on March 06, 2021, 06:33:50 PM
So, I was on campus the other day and I saw someone teaching without a mask or face shield. Masks are required in all campus buildings. There are even signs on the doors. I can't think of an exception to this...

Doesn't your campus have an anonymous online tip form, to anonymously rat out instances of mask violations?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on March 06, 2021, 09:10:52 PM
Quote from: lightning on March 06, 2021, 07:09:03 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on March 06, 2021, 06:33:50 PM
So, I was on campus the other day and I saw someone teaching without a mask or face shield. Masks are required in all campus buildings. There are even signs on the doors. I can't think of an exception to this...

Doesn't your campus have an anonymous online tip form, to anonymously rat out instances of mask violations?

I'll have to check.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: histchick on March 07, 2021, 09:53:26 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on March 06, 2021, 09:10:52 PM
Quote from: lightning on March 06, 2021, 07:09:03 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on March 06, 2021, 06:33:50 PM
So, I was on campus the other day and I saw someone teaching without a mask or face shield. Masks are required in all campus buildings. There are even signs on the doors. I can't think of an exception to this...

Doesn't your campus have an anonymous online tip form, to anonymously rat out instances of mask violations?

I'll have to check.
You may also want to re-check your campus policies.  At our place, some folks have accommodations that allow them to refrain from mask-wearing.  I can't imagine a faculty member being allowed to teach without one, though. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on March 07, 2021, 10:15:00 AM
Quote from: histchick on March 07, 2021, 09:53:26 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on March 06, 2021, 09:10:52 PM
Quote from: lightning on March 06, 2021, 07:09:03 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on March 06, 2021, 06:33:50 PM
So, I was on campus the other day and I saw someone teaching without a mask or face shield. Masks are required in all campus buildings. There are even signs on the doors. I can't think of an exception to this...

Doesn't your campus have an anonymous online tip form, to anonymously rat out instances of mask violations?

I'll have to check.
You may also want to re-check your campus policies.  At our place, some folks have accommodations that allow them to refrain from mask-wearing.  I can't imagine a faculty member being allowed to teach without one, though.

Yep, I looked and they do have accommodations, so it is possible that this person is exempt from mask-wearing, but it just seems odd to me. If your health (physical/mental) prevents you from wearing a mask, then why are you teaching in person? I know there are probably a lot of reasons for this, since I don't know what's going in in everyone's life. I will admit, that I'm still freaked out by the event.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on March 08, 2021, 10:28:06 AM
Since yesterday morning I have had a rather bad case of "the flux."  Much worse than anything I'm accustomed to having.  Otherwise I feel fine.  Since looseness of the bowels is one possible sign of COVID, the members of the staff are now looking at me with suspicion.  The lack of other symptoms makes me strongly suspect that it's simple runs.  But I am taking steps to isolate myself and get tested ASAP.  Looks like I'm going to be pre-emptively banished from work for the next couple of days.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on March 08, 2021, 10:51:11 AM
Quote from: apl68 on March 08, 2021, 10:28:06 AM
Since yesterday morning I have had a rather bad case of "the flux."  Much worse than anything I'm accustomed to having.  Otherwise I feel fine.  Since looseness of the bowels is one possible sign of COVID, the members of the staff are now looking at me with suspicion.  The lack of other symptoms makes me strongly suspect that it's simple runs.  But I am taking steps to isolate myself and get tested ASAP.  Looks like I'm going to be pre-emptively banished from work for the next couple of days.

It's also a known side-effect of some of the vaccines.  Have you recently been vaccinated?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on March 08, 2021, 11:06:40 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on March 08, 2021, 10:51:11 AM
Quote from: apl68 on March 08, 2021, 10:28:06 AM
Since yesterday morning I have had a rather bad case of "the flux."  Much worse than anything I'm accustomed to having.  Otherwise I feel fine.  Since looseness of the bowels is one possible sign of COVID, the members of the staff are now looking at me with suspicion.  The lack of other symptoms makes me strongly suspect that it's simple runs.  But I am taking steps to isolate myself and get tested ASAP.  Looks like I'm going to be pre-emptively banished from work for the next couple of days.

It's also a known side-effect of some of the vaccines.  Have you recently been vaccinated?

No, still waiting for state eligibility to get around to me.  I'd really hate to think I had gotten the stuff after dodging it successfully for a whole year.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 08, 2021, 12:05:20 PM
Quote from: apl68 on March 08, 2021, 10:28:06 AM
Since yesterday morning I have had a rather bad case of "the flux."  Much worse than anything I'm accustomed to having.  Otherwise I feel fine.  Since looseness of the bowels is one possible sign of COVID, the members of the staff are now looking at me with suspicion.  The lack of other symptoms makes me strongly suspect that it's simple runs.  But I am taking steps to isolate myself and get tested ASAP.  Looks like I'm going to be pre-emptively banished from work for the next couple of days.

Yeah, anything is possible, but the people I know who had gastro symptoms of COVID felt pretty terrible. Of course, better to be careful and get tested, but I wouldn't worry too much...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on March 09, 2021, 08:12:47 AM
Feeling fine today, but still isolating.  I'm taking care of some essential tasks at work.  Scheduled to be tested at 3:00 this afternoon.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on March 09, 2021, 07:20:30 PM
Earlier today, Gov. Hogan announced lifting capacity restrictions in MD starting 5 pm Friday:
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2021/03/maryland-lifts-capacity-limits-for-restaurants-effective-friday/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2021/03/maryland-lifts-capacity-limits-for-restaurants-effective-friday/)
Definitely good news!

Gov. Northam provided updates for VA:
https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/03/virginia-coronavirus-update-march-9/ (https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/03/virginia-coronavirus-update-march-9/)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on March 09, 2021, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on March 09, 2021, 07:20:30 PM
Earlier today, Gov. Hogan announced lifting capacity restrictions in MD starting 5 pm Friday:
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2021/03/maryland-lifts-capacity-limits-for-restaurants-effective-friday/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2021/03/maryland-lifts-capacity-limits-for-restaurants-effective-friday/)
Definitely good news!

Gov. Northam provided updates for VA:
https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/03/virginia-coronavirus-update-march-9/ (https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/03/virginia-coronavirus-update-march-9/)

Once a few states lift restrictions, there will be ENORMOUS pressure on other states to do so as well. I'm afraid the decisions will all be driven by political appearances rather than actual facts.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on March 10, 2021, 06:18:52 AM
Preliminary test came back negative.  The full test results will come in another day or two.  Meanwhile I'm still supposed to be staying away from everybody.  I've got things that I really have to get done at work, so I'm closed up in my office doing them.  The fact that I'm on the premises at all still scares some of them.  Come on, folks, germs can't get past good, solid doors!  And simply walking from the back entrance to my office while dutifully wearing a mask is not going to poison the place.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 10, 2021, 06:59:49 AM
Quote from: pgher on March 09, 2021, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on March 09, 2021, 07:20:30 PM
Earlier today, Gov. Hogan announced lifting capacity restrictions in MD starting 5 pm Friday:
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2021/03/maryland-lifts-capacity-limits-for-restaurants-effective-friday/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2021/03/maryland-lifts-capacity-limits-for-restaurants-effective-friday/)
Definitely good news!

Gov. Northam provided updates for VA:
https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/03/virginia-coronavirus-update-march-9/ (https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/03/virginia-coronavirus-update-march-9/)

Just that restaurants have ever been open for indoor dining is bizarre and reflects our total inability to prioritize. I have cousins who own a restaurant  who just shut down in March. They did takeout for a couple of days and then decided that they the idea that their employees were going to get sick just from coming into work was more than they could live with and they've been closed since. They are lucky. They own the building and their spouses both have white collar salaried jobs, so they can afford to stay shut, although I'm sure it isn't great. Most restaurants can't do that and takeout probably doesn't generate the same revenue, especially if you have a liquor license. Far more federal money should have been available to allow places to stay closed, or at least only do carryout or outside dining, based on case rates in the area.

As it is, when you allow places to be open, you're sending the message that indoor dining is safe, when really it is one of the riskiest things you can do.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 10, 2021, 08:37:49 AM
When the closures first started, my coworker's son (who is trained to be a fireman and waiting for the call) was working in the kitchen.  He volunteered to be laid off so that the other workers could keep earning money. Then the government added a bonus to unemployment, and he was making as much or more as the ones that were working! 
I asked if he could wash and wax my camper so that I could get it up for sale, but he was too busy playing video games! 

Im glad that the government has provided the safety net that it has, but I think that it is going to be hard to turn off this tap and get everyone back to work.  However, once the kids are back in school full time, I think that it will make people more willing and able to get back to work, especially when the periodic government checks and enhanced unemployment checks cease (If they do!)

The bad news is that we are going to be paying for this for a long, long time!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on March 10, 2021, 11:23:48 PM
No we're not, really.   All we have to do is raise taxes on those most able to afford it, who have largely been free-riders in an economic system that was rigged to their benefit.   We could start by forcing many American companies to, ahem, actually pay taxes, repatriate their profits, etc.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 11, 2021, 12:55:18 PM
QuoteAll we have to do is raise taxes on those most able to afford it, who have largely been free-riders in an economic system that was rigged to their benefit.

Who decides who is "most able to afford it"?  I fear that there are a lot of people that would be gathered in that net by the tax policy writers. 

And please identify the qualities of the "free riders in an economic system that was rigged to their benefit"?  How do I know one when I see one?   (Am I one?  Are You?)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on March 11, 2021, 09:08:16 PM
We could start with people like zillionaire Jeff Bezos, whose firm did not pay taxes most years, due to bad legal policy.  Add perhaps firms like Walmart, and Amazon itself, who pay most of their workers too little to avoid qualifying for welfare benefits.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 12, 2021, 08:46:41 AM
QuoteWe could start with people like zillionaire Jeff Bezos, whose firm did not pay taxes most years, due to bad legal policy

Teh "bad legal policy" is the tax loss carry forward.  Amazon lost A Lot of money in the beginning. They are not paying taxes now because the losses in the earlier years are offsetting the profits they make now.  The tax rules have recently changed, and I do not know the current set, but the last set was "back two or Forward 20".  That means that if a firm makes a loss this year, they can essentially file amended returns for the last 2 years to get a refund of the taxes they paid earlier and then they can carry those losses forward for up to 20 years.  (The new rules I can not remember are more restrictive).

So eventually, Amazon Will pay taxes once either they use up their tax losses Or time.

Of course, as Trump would spin it, Amazon pays plenty in property taxes, social security taxes, and unemployment taxes.


I dont know anything about Bezos income taxes, but in that a large chunk of his wealth is the value of the Amazon stock, are you suggesting that people should pay taxes on their unrealized gains?  Once he sells his shares, he will pay taxes.  Until then, there is nothing to pay taxes on. 

IF you want to change that, remember the ramifications of your actions.  IF you tax unrealized gains, what will that do to family farms?  What will that do to small business owners?  IF you own rental property, should you pay income taxes if the value of the property goes up?  Should you pay income taxes as the value of your own personal residence goes up (remember that inflation may be on the horizon, so you could be taxed simply as a result of the dollar deflating?)  And what about the elderly that purchased their houses 40 years ago, but are now on a fixed income?  Can they afford to pay income taxes on the value of their house?

Be careful what you wish for!  It is easy to get caught when you cast the net of 'fairness'. And dont forget that the ultra wealthy can afford to pay for the best experts to avoid taxes (legally). 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on March 12, 2021, 09:35:23 PM
I  just shipped off $60 this week to pay my annual auto excise tax on my 2007 Chevy.   IOW, I am paying a wealth tax, such as it is, and of course I still own the car.   Unrealized profit?

Wealth taxes are fine.   
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on March 12, 2021, 09:38:02 PM
You are probably right about the lion's share of what Amazon corporate is doing with its US based income, offsetting earlier losses.   Where the sovereign right for them to be able to do that comes from, on the other hand....

And it still does not consider why we should let them pay so little that thousands of their employees qualify for public assistance programs.   There is literally no one in this country less deserving of any form of welfare than Jeff Bezos.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on March 13, 2021, 06:50:47 AM
Still no news back on my final COVID test.  Looks like I'll probably have to call them Monday to see if I can get an answer.  Here I'd hoped that between increased lab capacity and reduced rates of infection the delay wouldn't be that bad.

I know within reason that all I had was a stomach bug with symptoms that happened to overlap with COVID.  But I'm trying to follow the rules to set a good example, and to reassure staff members who worry a lot.  Introvert though I am, this isolation is getting to be a bit much!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on March 13, 2021, 08:47:10 AM
Quote from: apl68 on March 13, 2021, 06:50:47 AM
Still no news back on my final COVID test.  Looks like I'll probably have to call them Monday to see if I can get an answer.  Here I'd hoped that between increased lab capacity and reduced rates of infection the delay wouldn't be that bad.

I know within reason that all I had was a stomach bug with symptoms that happened to overlap with COVID.  But I'm trying to follow the rules to set a good example, and to reassure staff members who worry a lot.  Introvert though I am, this isolation is getting to be a bit much!

I've been told that when you have symptoms that are fairly unlikely to be COVID, a rapid test can be a good option. The logic is that people with symptoms are more likely to test positive if they actually have it, and while they aren't as accurate as the other tests, a person with symptoms that aren't particularly indicative of COVID who tests negative is quite unlikely to be infected. The rapid tests are a lot less useful if you have symptoms that make Covid more likely because you wouldn't really be able to put too much stock in a negative test in that case.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on March 15, 2021, 07:22:23 AM
The full test results finally came back.  Clean bill of health!  Now I can open my office doors again and handle library items without worrying everybody.  Still masking around others, of course.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on March 15, 2021, 08:07:43 AM
Quote from: apl68 on March 15, 2021, 07:22:23 AM
The full test results finally came back.  Clean bill of health!  Now I can open my office doors again and handle library items without worrying everybody.  Still masking around others, of course.

Good news!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on March 15, 2021, 07:35:15 PM
DC Mayor Muriel Bowser announced an expansion for the vaccine and relaxing some restrictions:
https://wtop.com/dc/2021/03/dc-coronavirus-update-march-15/ (https://wtop.com/dc/2021/03/dc-coronavirus-update-march-15/)
Posted on WTOP Radio online (3/15/21) There are some ad breaks so scroll past them to read the full article.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on March 15, 2021, 08:30:58 PM
QuoteQuote from: apl68 on Today at 07:22:23 AM
The full test results finally came back.  Clean bill of health!  Now I can open my office doors again and handle library items without worrying everybody.  Still masking around others, of course.

Good news!

Did you have surgery today?  (successful I hope?)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on April 01, 2021, 07:30:11 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on March 15, 2021, 08:07:43 AM
Quote from: apl68 on March 15, 2021, 07:22:23 AM
The full test results finally came back.  Clean bill of health!  Now I can open my office doors again and handle library items without worrying everybody.  Still masking around others, of course.

Good news!

+1!

*unrelated*

Something that's interesting to me is that if you draw up a list of the places that, excluding vaccination, handled Covid exceptionally well (Vietnam, Taiwan, etc) and those that have been world-beating in their vaccination schemes (Israel, UAE, etc) there is zero overlap. It doesn't hold the other way around, as plenty of countries have managed to botch both.
In many places, this pandemic has been the deadliest event in decades - in the US, surely the deadliest event since the Spanish flu, and apart from Spanish flu probably the deadliest since the Civil War. So the State's performance really doesn't get more life-and-death than in how the pandemic is handled (esp. as botched pandemic responses also have had gargantuan economic costs). So if voters are at all rational, in principle democracies should punish bad performance and reward effective responses. In some democracies it's indeed been the case, like rewarding the incumbent in NZ, and Brazil's catastrophic performance contributing to a political crisis for Bolsonaro is also rational. On the other hand, Mexico has fared even worse than Brazil and it hasn't dented the incumbent's popularity, and the Dutch re-elected the incumbent despite a pandemic response, excluding vaccination, that can at best be described as mediocre and thoroughly botching vaccination. An interesting case to watch will be France, where Macron seems more interested in owning les rosbifs than in saving French lives.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 02, 2021, 05:06:24 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on April 01, 2021, 07:30:11 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on March 15, 2021, 08:07:43 AM
Quote from: apl68 on March 15, 2021, 07:22:23 AM
The full test results finally came back.  Clean bill of health!  Now I can open my office doors again and handle library items without worrying everybody.  Still masking around others, of course.

Good news!

+1!

*unrelated*

Something that's interesting to me is that if you draw up a list of the places that, excluding vaccination, handled Covid exceptionally well (Vietnam, Taiwan, etc) and those that have been world-beating in their vaccination schemes (Israel, UAE, etc) there is zero overlap. It doesn't hold the other way around, as plenty of countries have managed to botch both.
In many places, this pandemic has been the deadliest event in decades - in the US, surely the deadliest event since the Spanish flu, and apart from Spanish flu probably the deadliest since the Civil War. So the State's performance really doesn't get more life-and-death than in how the pandemic is handled (esp. as botched pandemic responses also have had gargantuan economic costs). So if voters are at all rational, in principle democracies should punish bad performance and reward effective responses. In some democracies it's indeed been the case, like rewarding the incumbent in NZ, and Brazil's catastrophic performance contributing to a political crisis for Bolsonaro is also rational. On the other hand, Mexico has fared even worse than Brazil and it hasn't dented the incumbent's popularity, and the Dutch re-elected the incumbent despite a pandemic response, excluding vaccination, that can at best be described as mediocre and thoroughly botching vaccination. An interesting case to watch will be France, where Macron seems more interested in owning les rosbifs than in saving French lives.

In some of these cases, I'd be inclined to argue that they were so successful at keeping virus cases to a very low level, that there's not any huge hurry on the vaccines. I wonder, for example, what percentage of the population New Zealand would have to vaccinate before they would relax the controls and response they've had to the rare cluster outside of travelers in isolation? It would probably have to be very high right? In other cases, its hard to blame countries just for not being really wealthy and being able to secure access to vaccines. I'd also say its probably a bit early to decide who is doing a particularly bad job with vaccines, beyond the EU, where the comparison to the US seems reasonably fair. Most countries really haven't vaccinate many people, which suggests that there are just logistical and supply problems.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on April 02, 2021, 12:07:01 PM
QuoteIn some of these cases, I'd be inclined to argue that they were so successful at keeping virus cases to a very low level, that there's not any huge hurry on the vaccines.

I agree, they don't have nearly as much of an incentive to vaccinate quickly as badly affected countries. But it does surprise me a bit that there's exactly zero overlap between countries successful at containing the pandemic pre-vaccinations and countries with successful vaccination programs.

Quote
In other cases, its hard to blame countries just for not being really wealthy and being able to secure access to vaccines...

This is true for very poor countries (although some, like Tanzania, aren't even trying), but when it comes to middle income and rich countries there is remarkably little correlation with wealth. Chile is ahead of many EU countries. Switzerland is richer than Israel, yet Israel is light years ahead. The gap between the UK and any continental European country is massive. Serbia is ahead of many wealthier European countries. Even when it comes to vaccine development, wealth matters significantly less than one might've though - Russia, which is roughly as poor as Mexico, beat a lot of much wealthier countries, and in the Americas smallish, impoverished Cuba seems set to finish second in the race to develop vaccines. American and British successes are clearly not down to money alone.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 02, 2021, 12:10:57 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on April 01, 2021, 07:30:11 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on March 15, 2021, 08:07:43 AM
Quote from: apl68 on March 15, 2021, 07:22:23 AM
The full test results finally came back.  Clean bill of health!  Now I can open my office doors again and handle library items without worrying everybody.  Still masking around others, of course.

Good news!

+1!

*unrelated*

Something that's interesting to me is that if you draw up a list of the places that, excluding vaccination, handled Covid exceptionally well (Vietnam, Taiwan, etc) and those that have been world-beating in their vaccination schemes (Israel, UAE, etc) there is zero overlap. It doesn't hold the other way around, as plenty of countries have managed to botch both.
In many places, this pandemic has been the deadliest event in decades - in the US, surely the deadliest event since the Spanish flu, and apart from Spanish flu probably the deadliest since the Civil War. So the State's performance really doesn't get more life-and-death than in how the pandemic is handled (esp. as botched pandemic responses also have had gargantuan economic costs). So if voters are at all rational, in principle democracies should punish bad performance and reward effective responses. In some democracies it's indeed been the case, like rewarding the incumbent in NZ, and Brazil's catastrophic performance contributing to a political crisis for Bolsonaro is also rational. On the other hand, Mexico has fared even worse than Brazil and it hasn't dented the incumbent's popularity, and the Dutch re-elected the incumbent despite a pandemic response, excluding vaccination, that can at best be described as mediocre and thoroughly botching vaccination. An interesting case to watch will be France, where Macron seems more interested in owning les rosbifs than in saving French lives.

A possible intervening variable: obesity.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 02, 2021, 02:52:58 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on April 02, 2021, 12:07:01 PM
QuoteIn some of these cases, I'd be inclined to argue that they were so successful at keeping virus cases to a very low level, that there's not any huge hurry on the vaccines.

I agree, they don't have nearly as much of an incentive to vaccinate quickly as badly affected countries. But it does surprise me a bit that there's exactly zero overlap between countries successful at containing the pandemic pre-vaccinations and countries with successful vaccination programs.

Quote
In other cases, its hard to blame countries just for not being really wealthy and being able to secure access to vaccines...

This is true for very poor countries (although some, like Tanzania, aren't even trying), but when it comes to middle income and rich countries there is remarkably little correlation with wealth. Chile is ahead of many EU countries. Switzerland is richer than Israel, yet Israel is light years ahead. The gap between the UK and any continental European country is massive. Serbia is ahead of many wealthier European countries. Even when it comes to vaccine development, wealth matters significantly less than one might've though - Russia, which is roughly as poor as Mexico, beat a lot of much wealthier countries, and in the Americas smallish, impoverished Cuba seems set to finish second in the race to develop vaccines. American and British successes are clearly not down to money alone.

Part of it is just about what deals countries worked out. Apparently, Israel paid a premium for the Pfizer vaccine and also offered the vaccine makers access to their centralized health data. I'm assuming this is the sort of deal a larger country wouldn't have been able to pull off. Pfizer could give Israel 9 million doses or whatever relatively easily because they made it worthwhile for them to do so. Probably they couldn't have found the supply to give somebody 30 million on the same terms.

It seems like Chile took a very different approach and got vaccines from all over the place, including China. The US has a lot of doses because they were very involved in the process from the beginning and secured commitments in return. Obviously speed is important, but in the longer term, it could be that countries with slower rollouts achieve fuller vaccine coverage. I worry about the US, not just because of vaccine hesitancy, but also because of the larger inequities that are showing up in vaccine distribution. It seems likely that there's going to be a need for vaccine boosters, both to keep immunity from going away, but also to deal with variants. That might be hard to manage with our health care system.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on April 02, 2021, 05:35:20 PM
Are vaccinations free in the US? They are - or will be when there's more roll out - here in Australia.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 02, 2021, 05:36:52 PM
Quote from: science.expat on April 02, 2021, 05:35:20 PM
Are vaccinations free in the US? They are - or will be when there's more roll out - here in Australia.

Yes, they are.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 08, 2021, 05:58:21 AM
Really interesting presentation of data here:

https://www.thesmileproject.global/post/un-masking-children-part-2-of-4-understanding-relative-risk (https://www.thesmileproject.global/post/un-masking-children-part-2-of-4-understanding-relative-risk).

Age is definitely a proxy for comorbidities in the USA, as is race.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 08, 2021, 11:07:10 AM
Quote from: spork on April 08, 2021, 05:58:21 AM
Really interesting presentation of data here:

https://www.thesmileproject.global/post/un-masking-children-part-2-of-4-understanding-relative-risk (https://www.thesmileproject.global/post/un-masking-children-part-2-of-4-understanding-relative-risk).

Age is definitely a proxy for comorbidities in the USA, as is race.

Some of the points are completely valid, especially on the actual risk of death or serious illness to children. However, the presentation as a whole can't be trusted.

For reasons I don't fully understand, questions of children and Covid have become incredibly contentious. Lots of people, including some with credentials who should know better, seem to start with an extreme belief about children and COVID and then cherrypick the evidence to support that view and never change their views no matter what additional evidence suggests. With things like mask use or vaccination this attitude is much more common and pronounced among anti-covid prevention trump supporting types, but with kids, the bad faith has a pretty even distribution.

The problem with epi and medical studies is that there are lots of things you can't actually test with a control group. So, you get all these studies that aren't definitive and involve confounding from various sources. The preferred way of handling this, even among plenty of people with relevant degrees seems to be to assume the ones that support your argument must be correct and then find the problems with the other ones, or you can make it simpler and just ignore the results you don't like. Seems like this is basically what's going on here. I'm quite convinced there is a pretty low actual risk to kids from COVID, and that includes rare things like the post covid syndrome. It also seems pretty clear that kids don't play the same outsized role in transmitting Covid that they do in flu transmission. After that the whole thing gets really murky. In general, I've pretty much decided that anyone who has some strident view they are convinced is right about it isn't to be trusted.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on April 08, 2021, 11:54:19 AM
Got a report today at lunch (Rotary Club) from our local school superintendent.  He said that they, like most schools around the state, are continuing to practice masking.  In recent weeks they've had no actual cases of COVID in the schools, and only a few precautionary quarantines.  Nearly all of the district's children in younger grades are now back face to face.  A lot of older youths are still out.  Even some of the ones who come in every afternoon to practice for school sports!  If they're given an option not to sit in class, they won't.  At one point about three dozen ostensibly online students had completely checked out.  There are concerns about what this sort of thing will do for workforce readiness in the next few years as these checked-out youths become our new workforce.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: lightning on April 08, 2021, 08:48:47 PM
Quote from: apl68 on April 08, 2021, 11:54:19 AM
Got a report today at lunch (Rotary Club) from our local school superintendent.  He said that they, like most schools around the state, are continuing to practice masking.  In recent weeks they've had no actual cases of COVID in the schools, and only a few precautionary quarantines.  Nearly all of the district's children in younger grades are now back face to face.  A lot of older youths are still out.  Even some of the ones who come in every afternoon to practice for school sports!  If they're given an option not to sit in class, they won't.  At one point about three dozen ostensibly online students had completely checked out.  There are concerns about what this sort of thing will do for workforce readiness in the next few years as these checked-out youths become our new workforce.

I cannot friggin' believe that the school district allows the athletes the option to practice after school hours in-person, while letting them stay home during the school day under the cover of public health. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 09, 2021, 04:24:34 AM
Quote from: lightning on April 08, 2021, 08:48:47 PM
Quote from: apl68 on April 08, 2021, 11:54:19 AM
Got a report today at lunch (Rotary Club) from our local school superintendent.  He said that they, like most schools around the state, are continuing to practice masking.  In recent weeks they've had no actual cases of COVID in the schools, and only a few precautionary quarantines.  Nearly all of the district's children in younger grades are now back face to face.  A lot of older youths are still out.  Even some of the ones who come in every afternoon to practice for school sports!  If they're given an option not to sit in class, they won't.  At one point about three dozen ostensibly online students had completely checked out.  There are concerns about what this sort of thing will do for workforce readiness in the next few years as these checked-out youths become our new workforce.

I cannot friggin' believe that the school district allows the athletes the option to practice after school hours in-person, while letting them stay home during the school day under the cover of public health.

To be fair, if the practices are outside, there would be a certain logic to it. Of course, thats assuming they aren't going into locker rooms before and after. The NFL kept very close records of transmissions and found that it appeared that virtually none of them occurred outside during practices or games.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on April 09, 2021, 07:20:38 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 09, 2021, 04:24:34 AM
Quote from: lightning on April 08, 2021, 08:48:47 PM
Quote from: apl68 on April 08, 2021, 11:54:19 AM
Got a report today at lunch (Rotary Club) from our local school superintendent.  He said that they, like most schools around the state, are continuing to practice masking.  In recent weeks they've had no actual cases of COVID in the schools, and only a few precautionary quarantines.  Nearly all of the district's children in younger grades are now back face to face.  A lot of older youths are still out.  Even some of the ones who come in every afternoon to practice for school sports!  If they're given an option not to sit in class, they won't.  At one point about three dozen ostensibly online students had completely checked out.  There are concerns about what this sort of thing will do for workforce readiness in the next few years as these checked-out youths become our new workforce.

I cannot friggin' believe that the school district allows the athletes the option to practice after school hours in-person, while letting them stay home during the school day under the cover of public health.

To be fair, if the practices are outside, there would be a certain logic to it. Of course, thats assuming they aren't going into locker rooms before and after. The NFL kept very close records of transmissions and found that it appeared that virtually none of them occurred outside during practices or games.

That's probably the thought behind it, all right. 

Some of the student athletes appear to be avoiding face-to-face classes for fear that they'll get caught up in quarantines and miss games.  Some have gotten burned by that.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on April 09, 2021, 03:25:40 PM
It's not good in Michigan right now. NYT lists the top 20 cities in new cases per (you pick a denominator), and 16 are in Michigan.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on April 12, 2021, 12:32:53 PM
Three days in a row with no known COVID deaths in our state.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Bbmaj7b5 on April 12, 2021, 04:21:16 PM
"More than 70% of our seniors have received a vaccine shot. More than 50% of those who are 60 to 65 have received a vaccine shot. I don't know what herd immunity is but when you add that to acquired immunity, it looks like that could be very close to herd immunity..."

Texas Governor Greg Abbott
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on April 12, 2021, 06:27:33 PM
Herd immunity is not when one fraction of the populace reaches a certain percentage, unless that fraction never ever interacts with any other part of the population. Some people are really clueless. By "people" I mean "governors."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on April 12, 2021, 07:04:18 PM
Quote from: Bbmaj7b5 on April 12, 2021, 04:21:16 PM
"More than 70% of our seniors have received a vaccine shot. More than 50% of those who are 60 to 65 have received a vaccine shot. I don't know what herd immunity is but when you add that to acquired immunity, it looks like that could be very close to herd immunity..."

Texas Governor Greg Abbott

Well, he's certainly right that he doesn't know what herd immunity is. . .
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 13, 2021, 06:12:45 AM
The susceptibles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHhPwMooUmg&ab_channel=CBC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHhPwMooUmg&ab_channel=CBC).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on April 13, 2021, 01:00:15 PM
And our respite is over.  The state has had four virus deaths in the past day.

I notice that Texas has just had 29 new losses.  You can't say "herd immunity" when this sort of thing is still going on.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on April 13, 2021, 01:14:27 PM
Dammit!  I was 24 hrs from the J&J virus and it got pulled.  Damn.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 13, 2021, 02:15:28 PM
Quote from: FishProf on April 13, 2021, 01:14:27 PM
Dammit!  I was 24 hrs from the J&J virus and it got pulled.  Damn.

It's been a month since my JNJ vaccination. No blood clots for me!

In passing I saw some blurb about this extremely rare side effect being connected to a specific antibody in the immune systems of the people who experienced clots. I'll have to look for the story.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Harlow2 on April 13, 2021, 05:28:21 PM
Family member diagnosed 24 hours before long sought-after vaccine appointment; another was to get J&J later this week.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on April 13, 2021, 06:10:34 PM
Quote from: Harlow2 on April 13, 2021, 05:28:21 PM
Family member diagnosed 24 hours before long sought-after vaccine appointment; another was to get J&J later this week.
Oh, how frustrating/distressing, Harlow!  Best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery for your one family member, and vaccine availability for the other.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on April 14, 2021, 04:28:44 PM
Quote from: Bbmaj7b5 on April 12, 2021, 04:21:16 PM
"... I don't know what herd immunity is..."

Texas Governor Greg Abbott

Look, Ma! An honest politician!

Not my field of expertise, but my understanding is that you need at least about 70% vaccination rates for herd immunity, and since there isn't a pediatric vaccine yet, you'd need well over 70% of the adult population vaccinated to have herd immunity. In some parts of the world (much of Africa, for example) even 100% of the adult population might not be enough.

On a separate note, I think some of the geopolitical consequences of the pandemic are becoming clear. To the extent that there are any winners, East Asia would be the clear winner, esp. economically. Russia is also a winner, having shown they have R&D strengths that, say, France, South Korea, Japan or Canada do not. Africa, outside of Tanzania, which easily has had the world's worst response, is also a winner, having handled it remarkably well. Clear losers include the EU, which has managed to spectacularly botch every single aspect of its pandemic response, although within the EU I think Germany is stronger than before relative to the Club Med (so Germany looks like it's riding first class on the Titanic). Latin America is also generally a loser; the "leading" countries, Mexico and Brazil, have had some of the world's worst pandemic responses and have fully conformed to Latin American stereotype: Not much in strengths outside of exporting commodities, mired in dysfunctional politics incapable of responding effectively to pressing issues, and R&D isn't on the radar (Mexico and Brazil are in the same economic ballpark as Russia, so it's clearly not about money).  Oil exporters generally have been losers because of the collapse in oil prices, save to some extent the UAE, whose vaccination program has shown they have genuine logistical strenghts.

On a more personal note, my view of my hometown has changed significantly as a result of the pandemic - now it's hard not to see it as Covidiot Central.

Quote from: Harlow2 on April 13, 2021, 05:28:21 PM
Family member diagnosed 24 hours before long sought-after vaccine appointment; another was to get J&J later this week.

Sorry to hear that, I hope your relative makes a speedy recovery.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Bbmaj7b5 on April 15, 2021, 04:12:40 AM
Quote from: apl68 on April 13, 2021, 01:00:15 PM
And our respite is over.  The state has had four virus deaths in the past day.

I notice that Texas has just had 29 new losses.  You can't say "herd immunity" when this sort of thing is still going on.

Clearly Abbott is saying dumb stuff about the coronavirus so that voters will forget his doing dumb stuff during the Texas Ice Storm.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 15, 2021, 04:41:27 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on April 14, 2021, 04:28:44 PM
Quote from: Bbmaj7b5 on April 12, 2021, 04:21:16 PM
"... I don't know what herd immunity is..."

Texas Governor Greg Abbott

Look, Ma! An honest politician!

Not my field of expertise, but my understanding is that you need at least about 70% vaccination rates for herd immunity, and since there isn't a pediatric vaccine yet, you'd need well over 70% of the adult population vaccinated to have herd immunity. In some parts of the world (much of Africa, for example) even 100% of the adult population might not be enough.

On a separate note, I think some of the geopolitical consequences of the pandemic are becoming clear. To the extent that there are any winners, East Asia would be the clear winner, esp. economically. Russia is also a winner, having shown they have R&D strengths that, say, France, South Korea, Japan or Canada do not. Africa, outside of Tanzania, which easily has had the world's worst response, is also a winner, having handled it remarkably well. Clear losers include the EU, which has managed to spectacularly botch every single aspect of its pandemic response, although within the EU I think Germany is stronger than before relative to the Club Med (so Germany looks like it's riding first class on the Titanic). Latin America is also generally a loser; the "leading" countries, Mexico and Brazil, have had some of the world's worst pandemic responses and have fully conformed to Latin American stereotype: Not much in strengths outside of exporting commodities, mired in dysfunctional politics incapable of responding effectively to pressing issues, and R&D isn't on the radar (Mexico and Brazil are in the same economic ballpark as Russia, so it's clearly not about money).  Oil exporters generally have been losers because of the collapse in oil prices, save to some extent the UAE, whose vaccination program has shown they have genuine logistical strenghts.

On a more personal note, my view of my hometown has changed significantly as a result of the pandemic - now it's hard not to see it as Covidiot Central.

Quote from: Harlow2 on April 13, 2021, 05:28:21 PM
Family member diagnosed 24 hours before long sought-after vaccine appointment; another was to get J&J later this week.

Sorry to hear that, I hope your relative makes a speedy recovery.

Lower than that, perhaps, since you can add natural infection, but its probably not a clear number. When Israel got somewhere over 50 percent their numbers started going way down and have continued to plummet despite few remaining restrictions.

I think its worth keeping in mind how destructive polarization around this has been-obviously the misinformation and bad choices from people who believe none of this is real have been bad-but there's plenty of bad results from polarization to go around. I'm continually amazed by people who seem to have accepted it as an article of faith that restrictions will need to stay in place long into the future, who treat anyone trying to balance trade offs versus risks as a dangerous person putting everyone at danger, or who believe, despite a lot of evidence to the contrary, that children are super spreaders and there's no way reopening schools could be safe. There are a lot of people who aren't thinking very clearly at this point, it isn't just people in your home town.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Bbmaj7b5 on April 15, 2021, 04:53:06 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on April 14, 2021, 04:28:44 PM
Quote from: Bbmaj7b5 on April 12, 2021, 04:21:16 PM
"... I don't know what herd immunity is..."

Texas Governor Greg Abbott

Look, Ma! An honest politician!


Science, in general, befuddles him.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on April 15, 2021, 07:34:12 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on April 14, 2021, 04:28:44 PM
Quote from: Bbmaj7b5 on April 12, 2021, 04:21:16 PM
"... I don't know what herd immunity is..."
Texas Governor Greg Abbott
Look, Ma! An honest politician!

Not my field of expertise, but my understanding is that you need at least about 70% vaccination rates for herd immunity, and since there isn't a pediatric vaccine yet, you'd need well over 70% of the adult population vaccinated to have herd immunity. In some parts of the world (much of Africa, for example) even 100% of the adult population might not be enough.

On a separate note, I think some of the geopolitical consequences of the pandemic are becoming clear. To the extent that there are any winners, East Asia would be the clear winner, esp. economically. Russia is also a winner, having shown they have R&D strengths that, say, France, South Korea, Japan or Canada do not. Africa, outside of Tanzania, which easily has had the world's worst response, is also a winner, having handled it remarkably well. Clear losers include the EU, which has managed to spectacularly botch every single aspect of its pandemic response, although within the EU I think Germany is stronger than before relative to the Club Med (so Germany looks like it's riding first class on the Titanic). Latin America is also generally a loser; the "leading" countries, Mexico and Brazil, have had some of the world's worst pandemic responses and have fully conformed to Latin American stereotype: Not much in strengths outside of exporting commodities, mired in dysfunctional politics incapable of responding effectively to pressing issues, and R&D isn't on the radar (Mexico and Brazil are in the same economic ballpark as Russia, so it's clearly not about money).  Oil exporters generally have been losers because of the collapse in oil prices, save to some extent the UAE, whose vaccination program has shown they have genuine logistical strenghts.

On a more personal note, my view of my hometown has changed significantly as a result of the pandemic - now it's hard not to see it as Covidiot Central.

What about New Zealand and Australia?  Seemingly amazing at containing the virus.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on April 15, 2021, 07:58:47 AM
The problem with Abbott's statement is not one with quibbling about the exact threshold for herd immunity, but rather that he seems to think it can be achieved in seniors based on the vaccination rate in seniors. He doesn't seem to understand it is a community population measure, and unless seniors aren't mixing with younger people at all you have to look at the vaccination rate across all ages.

In the flip side, I've seen equally dumb takes about how "the US" won't be able to reach herd immunity because 20-25% of US adults say they will never get vaccinated, as if the never-vaxers were equally distributed through the population, when we know they are heavily concentrated in red, rural areas. Herd immunity applies to whatever population is intermingling, not to the country as a whole. So yes, some areas definitely won't reach herd immunity (or will do so only through eventual natural immunity), but how much of a problem for the rest of the country that is depends on how much population mixing there is between those areas and places with good vaccine uptake. Indeed, transmission outside the US could be a bigger threat in some areas than transmission in a rural area of the US where few people travel outside their immediate region.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on April 15, 2021, 09:28:45 AM
Quote from: Puget on April 15, 2021, 07:58:47 AM

...as if the never-vaxers were equally distributed through the population, when we know they are heavily concentrated in red, rural areas.

The term "never-vaxers" doesn't capture probably significant numbers who are not "anti-vax" in general but, in the case of COVID vaccines, are hesitant and taking a "wait-and-see" approach.

According to numerous media reports, Detroit (neither red nor rural) has substantial vaccine hesitancy.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on April 15, 2021, 10:15:59 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on April 15, 2021, 09:28:45 AM
Quote from: Puget on April 15, 2021, 07:58:47 AM

...as if the never-vaxers were equally distributed through the population, when we know they are heavily concentrated in red, rural areas.

The term "never-vaxers" doesn't capture probably significant numbers who are not "anti-vax" in general but, in the case of COVID vaccines, are hesitant and taking a "wait-and-see" approach.

According to numerous media reports, Detroit (neither red nor rural) has substantial vaccine hesitancy.

The "wait and see" numbers have been going steadily down (so people were apparently using this response accurately-- the waited, saw, and decided they wanted it), and are now only about 15% of adults depending on the poll you look at. That number has dropped fastest among Black respondents, so I think your impression (or the media reports) are rather out of date. The "nevers" have stalled out at around 20%, and are heavily white conservative evangelicals, and more men than women. If you are claiming that we will "never" get to herd immunity it is mostly that 20% you are talking about, but it isn't really 20% uniformly, it's something like 5% in highly educated blue metro areas and 40% in some red rural areas.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 15, 2021, 12:06:38 PM
Quote from: Puget on April 15, 2021, 10:15:59 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on April 15, 2021, 09:28:45 AM
Quote from: Puget on April 15, 2021, 07:58:47 AM

...as if the never-vaxers were equally distributed through the population, when we know they are heavily concentrated in red, rural areas.

The term "never-vaxers" doesn't capture probably significant numbers who are not "anti-vax" in general but, in the case of COVID vaccines, are hesitant and taking a "wait-and-see" approach.

According to numerous media reports, Detroit (neither red nor rural) has substantial vaccine hesitancy.

The "wait and see" numbers have been going steadily down (so people were apparently using this response accurately-- the waited, saw, and decided they wanted it), and are now only about 15% of adults depending on the poll you look at. That number has dropped fastest among Black respondents, so I think your impression (or the media reports) are rather out of date. The "nevers" have stalled out at around 20%, and are heavily white conservative evangelicals, and more men than women. If you are claiming that we will "never" get to herd immunity it is mostly that 20% you are talking about, but it isn't really 20% uniformly, it's something like 5% in highly educated blue metro areas and 40% in some red rural areas.

I'm open to being criticized as totally wrong on this, but I think much of the "vaccine hesitancy" is actually 1) pre-existing lack of access to affordable/effective health care among socioeconomically marginalized groups, and 2) the implicit reporting bias produced by "journalistic objectivity" and the media's penchant for glorifying the terrible ("if it bleeds it leads").
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on April 15, 2021, 01:16:08 PM
Based on an informal skimming of discussions in the national and local mass media and social media in recent weeks, Covid vaccine hesitancy is a complex, nuanced thing in the U.S.  Emergency-use approval only rather than standard FDA approval, pioneering new vaccine methods, fear, trust, and public health messaging are all factors.

Informative article with predictions about lower vaccine demand:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/america-is-about-to-hit-a-vaccine-wall-as-demand-drops-with-or-without-johnson-johnson-162241805.html
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on April 15, 2021, 03:56:05 PM
Quote from: Caracal on April 15, 2021, 04:41:27 AM
Lower than that, perhaps, since you can add natural infection, but its probably not a clear number. When Israel got somewhere over 50 percent their numbers started going way down and have continued to plummet despite few remaining restrictions.

I agree, temporary inmmunity due to infection adds up and I wasn't considering that.

QuoteI think its worth keeping in mind how destructive polarization around this has been-obviously the misinformation and bad choices from people who believe none of this is real have been bad-but there's plenty of bad results from polarization to go around. I'm continually amazed by people who seem to have accepted it as an article of faith that restrictions will need to stay in place long into the future, who treat anyone trying to balance trade offs versus risks as a dangerous person putting everyone at danger, or who believe, despite a lot of evidence to the contrary, that children are super spreaders and there's no way reopening schools could be safe. There are a lot of people who aren't thinking very clearly at this point, it isn't just people in your home town.

Yep. The thing is, it's precisely complying with relatively mild precautions like wearing facemasks in public or contact-tracing (or vaccines) that makes it possible to lift harsher restrictions safely. Where people largely comply voluntarily (like in Japan), government diktat isn't needed and mild restrictions are all that's necessary to keep things under control. Where people largely refuse to comply, the trade-offs become awful, esp. once things are out of control. Where adults comply with things like facemasks, that makes things like keeping schools open safely possible, like in Singapore.  In my hometown, I know things got so bad that at the worst point the frequency of ambulance sirens actually fell near a major hopital - the hospitals were full, so the ambulances had nowhere to take people. But tell that to the many people, many of them old men (the demographic most likely to die) who went and continue to go out with chin diapers, or no facemask at all, all the people partying a la Masque of the Red Death, etc. I used to be proud of my hometown, but given the arrogance, petulance and selfishness on display, I no longer am.


Quote from: Cheerful on April 15, 2021, 07:34:12 AM
What about New Zealand and Australia?  Seemingly amazing at containing the virus.

I think they too will reap, or are already reaping, the benefits of re-opening both early and safely.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 16, 2021, 05:07:56 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on April 15, 2021, 03:56:05 PM
Quote from: Caracal on April 15, 2021, 04:41:27 AM
Lower than that, perhaps, since you can add natural infection, but its probably not a clear number. When Israel got somewhere over 50 percent their numbers started going way down and have continued to plummet despite few remaining restrictions.

I agree, temporary inmmunity due to infection adds up and I wasn't considering that.

QuoteI think its worth keeping in mind how destructive polarization around this has been-obviously the misinformation and bad choices from people who believe none of this is real have been bad-but there's plenty of bad results from polarization to go around. I'm continually amazed by people who seem to have accepted it as an article of faith that restrictions will need to stay in place long into the future, who treat anyone trying to balance trade offs versus risks as a dangerous person putting everyone at danger, or who believe, despite a lot of evidence to the contrary, that children are super spreaders and there's no way reopening schools could be safe. There are a lot of people who aren't thinking very clearly at this point, it isn't just people in your home town.

Yep. The thing is, it's precisely complying with relatively mild precautions like wearing facemasks in public or contact-tracing (or vaccines) that makes it possible to lift harsher restrictions safely. Where people largely comply voluntarily (like in Japan), government diktat isn't needed and mild restrictions are all that's necessary to keep things under control. Where people largely refuse to comply, the trade-offs become awful, esp. once things are out of control. Where adults comply with things like facemasks, that makes things like keeping schools open safely possible, like in Singapore.  In my hometown, I know things got so bad that at the worst point the frequency of ambulance sirens actually fell near a major hopital - the hospitals were full, so the ambulances had nowhere to take people. But tell that to the many people, many of them old men (the demographic most likely to die) who went and continue to go out with chin diapers, or no facemask at all, all the people partying a la Masque of the Red Death, etc. I used to be proud of my hometown, but given the arrogance, petulance and selfishness on display, I no longer am.



Yeah, I guess. However, I think its worth thinking of other attitudes as dangerous in more subtle ways. Freaking out about the dangers of outdoor spaces like beaches or parks, blaming spread of disease primarily on the people getting it and shaming of behavior rather than trying to figure out how to help people have all contributed to our failure to control this. Cities should have been putting up heat lamps in parks this winter. Last summer they should have been racing to put up misters and shade in warm areas. They didn't because you had useless scolds instead telling everyone to "stay home" as if that was useful advice 5 months into a pandemic that showed no signs of ending.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on April 16, 2021, 11:39:10 AM
In principle, yes, parks and beaches can be pretty safe if certain simple rules are followed. In the case of my hometown, this kind of falls under "that's why we can't have nice things" - you're probably much safer going to the mall, at least outside peak times, because rules on facemasks are actually enforced and are probably less crowded than during the before times anyway, than going to the park, which apparently is going to be pretty crowded with lots of people not wearing facemasks or not wearing them correctly, and lots of them jogging or whatever and therefore panting hard. So yeah, I agree compromise, avoiding paranoia, etc are necessary, but don't underestimate covidiot ability to ruin things for everyone.
In my hometown, at least anecdotally, the direct and indirect (the place has been badly hit economically) effects of the pandemic are driving people away, to the point of there seemingly being a glut of properties to let.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 16, 2021, 01:26:13 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on April 16, 2021, 11:39:10 AM
In principle, yes, parks and beaches can be pretty safe if certain simple rules are followed. In the case of my hometown, this kind of falls under "that's why we can't have nice things" - you're probably much safer going to the mall, at least outside peak times, because rules on facemasks are actually enforced and are probably less crowded than during the before times anyway, than going to the park, which apparently is going to be pretty crowded with lots of people not wearing facemasks or not wearing them correctly, and lots of them jogging or whatever and therefore panting hard. So yeah, I agree compromise, avoiding paranoia, etc are necessary, but don't underestimate covidiot ability to ruin things for everyone.
In my hometown, at least anecdotally, the direct and indirect (the place has been badly hit economically) effects of the pandemic are driving people away, to the point of there seemingly being a glut of properties to let.

Yeah, but thats the thing. It would be good if people in crowded outdoor public spaces were wearing masks, but all the evidence suggests that even if they aren't, those places are still much, much  safer than indoors. There have been zero super spreader events tied to events in exclusively outdoor spaces.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on April 16, 2021, 03:18:19 PM
QuoteIt would be good if people in crowded outdoor public spaces were wearing masks, but all the evidence suggests that even if they aren't, those places are still much, much  safer than indoors.

Yeah, but it's probably much safer to ride the subway in Tokyo or Seoul than taking a stroll in the park in my hometown, even though riding the subway "ought" to be physically ideal conditions for Covid spread and a walk in the park ought to be much safer. The difference is down not to any physical quality but to differences in behavior, and it's not just people in my hometown not wearing facemasks at the park, but also the much higher likelihood that they're infected in the first place, which is in turn down to widespread idiotic behavior in my hometown (they're not wearing facemasks at indoor raves, either) and widespread sensible behavior in Tokyo and Seoul.

QuoteThere have been zero super spreader events tied to events in exclusively outdoor spaces.

I'm not sure, does that nomination party at a White House garden count?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on April 16, 2021, 03:47:07 PM
Check out this cool customized risk calculation tool: https://www.microcovid.org/

Quote from: Stockmann on April 16, 2021, 03:18:19 PM
QuoteThere have been zero super spreader events tied to events in exclusively outdoor spaces.

I'm not sure, does that nomination party at a White House garden count?

No, it doesn't-- they also had spent time indoors beforehand (many unmasked) and that's where most/all the spread is believed to have occurred.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 16, 2021, 05:29:45 PM
Quote from: Puget on April 16, 2021, 03:47:07 PM
Check out this cool customized risk calculation tool: https://www.microcovid.org/

Quote from: Stockmann on April 16, 2021, 03:18:19 PM
QuoteThere have been zero super spreader events tied to events in exclusively outdoor spaces.

I'm not sure, does that nomination party at a White House garden count?

No, it doesn't-- they also had spent time indoors beforehand (many unmasked) and that's where most/all the spread is believed to have occurred.

Yeah, and that's true of all the examples I know that have been cited as examples of outdoor super spreader events. They all involved a signifiant indoor component. If you have a backyard bbq, but lots of people go and hang out inside without masks, that isn't actually an outdoor event...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on April 16, 2021, 10:41:04 PM
Outdoor transmission is less likely but non zero - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-16/more-than-1000-test-positive-to-covid19-at-kumbh-mela-india/100073802

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 17, 2021, 07:20:52 AM
Quote from: science.expat on April 16, 2021, 10:41:04 PM
Outdoor transmission is less likely but non zero - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-16/more-than-1000-test-positive-to-covid19-at-kumbh-mela-india/100073802

Hmm, so first of all the article is a bit misleading. If 1000 people at the festival test positive, it doesn't mean they all were infected there. Actually given average incubation time, probably most of them were infected elsewhere. This is also another example of something that isn't an exclusively outdoor event. People get there by train and bus, presumably. Once they are there, it seems like they stay in various facilities, including very large  communal dorms and there are lots of other events, some of which might be indoor.

It's the same issue with the pictures of beaches that newspapers are obsessed with publishing alongside COVID headlines. If you want to have a picture accurately describing the dangers of spread, you should show a bar, club or house party with spring breakers gathered there. The actual beach is pretty low risk.

That isn't to say there isn't probably significant elevated risk at very crowded outdoor events, but it still should be kept in perspective. The problem is that the alternative to people going to a somewhat crowded beach or park isn't everyone staying at their house. The alternative is usually people gathering inside.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on April 17, 2021, 10:34:41 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 17, 2021, 07:20:52 AM
Quote from: science.expat on April 16, 2021, 10:41:04 PM
Outdoor transmission is less likely but non zero - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-16/more-than-1000-test-positive-to-covid19-at-kumbh-mela-india/100073802

Hmm, so first of all the article is a bit misleading. If 1000 people at the festival test positive, it doesn't mean they all were infected there. Actually given average incubation time, probably most of them were infected elsewhere. This is also another example of something that isn't an exclusively outdoor event. People get there by train and bus, presumably. Once they are there, it seems like they stay in various facilities, including very large  communal dorms and there are lots of other events, some of which might be indoor.

It's the same issue with the pictures of beaches that newspapers are obsessed with publishing alongside COVID headlines. If you want to have a picture accurately describing the dangers of spread, you should show a bar, club or house party with spring breakers gathered there. The actual beach is pretty low risk.

That isn't to say there isn't probably significant elevated risk at very crowded outdoor events, but it still should be kept in perspective. The problem is that the alternative to people going to a somewhat crowded beach or park isn't everyone staying at their house. The alternative is usually people gathering inside.

People are at this festival for quite a long time. I think it's entirely believable many were in fact infected there.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on April 17, 2021, 10:57:22 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 17, 2021, 10:34:41 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 17, 2021, 07:20:52 AM
Quote from: science.expat on April 16, 2021, 10:41:04 PM
Outdoor transmission is less likely but non zero - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-16/more-than-1000-test-positive-to-covid19-at-kumbh-mela-india/100073802

Hmm, so first of all the article is a bit misleading. If 1000 people at the festival test positive, it doesn't mean they all were infected there. Actually given average incubation time, probably most of them were infected elsewhere. This is also another example of something that isn't an exclusively outdoor event. People get there by train and bus, presumably. Once they are there, it seems like they stay in various facilities, including very large  communal dorms and there are lots of other events, some of which might be indoor.

It's the same issue with the pictures of beaches that newspapers are obsessed with publishing alongside COVID headlines. If you want to have a picture accurately describing the dangers of spread, you should show a bar, club or house party with spring breakers gathered there. The actual beach is pretty low risk.

That isn't to say there isn't probably significant elevated risk at very crowded outdoor events, but it still should be kept in perspective. The problem is that the alternative to people going to a somewhat crowded beach or park isn't everyone staying at their house. The alternative is usually people gathering inside.

People are at this festival for quite a long time. I think it's entirely believable many were in fact infected there.

Sure, just saying that the presentation is a bit misleading. The bigger point is that this isn't just an outdoor event and there's no reason to think that most of this spread is taking place outdoors.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on May 03, 2021, 07:10:07 AM
On Sunday our church had the Lord's Supper (aka Communion) for the first time since before the shutdown.  It was so good to finally be able to celebrate this again.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on May 03, 2021, 08:31:48 AM
Quote from: apl68 on May 03, 2021, 07:10:07 AM
On Sunday our church had the Lord's Supper (aka Communion) for the first time since before the shutdown.  It was so good to finally be able to celebrate this again.

We started that with Easter. We are using the pre-filled kits (a mini chalice with juice and a nearly-edible wafer). That way we're not passing anything around.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on May 03, 2021, 07:09:29 PM
Quote from: apl68 on May 03, 2021, 07:10:07 AM
On Sunday our church had the Lord's Supper (aka Communion) for the first time since before the shutdown.  It was so good to finally be able to celebrate this again.
That's good news!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on May 04, 2021, 04:13:51 AM
On the one hand, reaching herd immunity seems to be unlikely https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/covid-herd-immunity-vaccine.html, but on the other hand, New York is rushing to reopen https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/nyregion/nyc-reopening.html

Business as usual, pandemic or not.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 04, 2021, 06:54:46 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on May 04, 2021, 04:13:51 AM
On the one hand, reaching herd immunity seems to be unlikely https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/covid-herd-immunity-vaccine.html, but on the other hand, New York is rushing to reopen https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/nyregion/nyc-reopening.html

Business as usual, pandemic or not.

Herd immunity isn't the right metric for deciding when and how much to reopen. The concept really applies to a situation in which an infectious disease is introduced. If the disease is already circulating widely you'll continue to have infections for quite a while even if you reached the level required for herd immunity. 

The article made the point that it isn't clear if herd immunity is likely, but that isn't actually a disaster. Israel has fully vaccinated about 55 percent of its population, fully reopened and cases have continued to decline. That doesn't actually tell us whether they have herd immunity, and they probably don't, but vaccination has dramatically cut transmission. That's what you want to see happen.

Of course, that doesn't mean its a good idea to rush to reopen everything. Cases have gone way down in NY, but they are still pretty high. The potential danger is that by rushing to reopen dangerous places too soon, you could end up slowing the decline in cases. in the long run that isn't going to be good for businesses either. I'd love to go to a bar, but I'm not going to do it, even though I'm vaccinated, until cases are a lot lower than they are now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on May 04, 2021, 08:03:57 AM
Not sure if this is really a good idea...

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/03/florida-governor-desantis-suspends-all-remaining-covid-restrictions.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/03/florida-governor-desantis-suspends-all-remaining-covid-restrictions.html)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on May 14, 2021, 01:25:52 PM
Looks like we will be reopening our library's Community Room event space beginning next month.  We've worked out a plan with a representative of the state Department of Health.  The space will be limited to events with no more than 20 attendees (In a room with a capacity of about 50), with sanitizer and masks provided by the library and all rules about social distancing, etc. for indoor events in place. 

Because the meetings will mostly take place outside normal library hours, we will not have staff on hand to police compliance with the guidelines.  What we will do is provide appropriate signage, incorporate a sheet on the guidelines in the user agreement that room users have to sign, and provide verbal instructions on the guidelines when they do their pre-event walk-throughs.  So they won't be able to say they didn't know better.  And we will have security video evidence of the room if people fail to comply with the guidelines.

This has been weighing on my mind for quite some time.  We've had a LOT of pressure from the public to reopen that room for public use.  The front desk staff have been in the awkward position of being unable to answer questions about when, exactly that will happen.  Now we can give some answers.  The public won't like them, but at least we have actual answers and a plan.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on May 14, 2021, 04:37:35 PM
My campus is hoping/planning a return to mostly in-person instruction in the Fall. 
But. 
They haven't put BUILDING or ROOM locations for any classes.
There is no plan for what to do for students/staff/faculty who won't/can't be vaccinated (yes, they can opt out).
The upper admin folks are considering allowing students to individually request remote instruction.  (can I just say NO?)
The stairways are still labeled as "up only" or "down only" even though there is no way that students will be able to get to their classes on time considering the random layout of many of our buildings.
The restrooms are supposed to be "1 user only" (Have they ever seen the line for the ladies restroom near my office?  It's 10+ even when you can use all the stalls)
The drinking fountains are covered up even though we know COVID is transmitted by air & not touching surfaces.

Ah well, Fall quarter is a long way off.  But it's going to be a bumpy transition.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on May 14, 2021, 04:59:55 PM
We've been advised that classrooms will have no occupancy restrictions.

This doesn't square with the revised guidance that came down from Health Canada this morning.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ciao_yall on May 14, 2021, 05:04:34 PM
Our college still officially plans to be 100% online in the Fall, despite poor student outcomes and our region having one of the highest vaccination rates in the country.

I think the administration likes working in a groupthink mode without faculty or students around to question their bad decisions. Some retired-in-place faculty and staff enjoy not having to leave the house just a bit too much.

Yes, there are some students who don't live conveniently nearby who are able to attend classes, still, our enrollment is way down so not sure the occasional anecdote offsets the broader trend.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Mobius on May 14, 2021, 05:54:19 PM
That's awful. No reason to not be in person.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on May 16, 2021, 07:06:34 PM
Quote from: Puget on April 16, 2021, 03:47:07 PM
Check out this cool customized risk calculation tool: https://www.microcovid.org/

Quote from: Stockmann on April 16, 2021, 03:18:19 PM
QuoteThere have been zero super spreader events tied to events in exclusively outdoor spaces.

I'm not sure, does that nomination party at a White House garden count?

No, it doesn't-- they also had spent time indoors beforehand (many unmasked) and that's where most/all the spread is believed to have occurred.

Fair enough. Note that I'm not questioning that outdoors transmission is less likely, just that it's unlikely the risk is negligible, at least in hotspots - so people not wearing facemasks in hotspots increases everyone else's risk, including outdoors.
Taiwan, which has had a grand total of a dozen Covid deaths, is now requiring facemasks outdoors amid a "spike" in cases (a spike relative to the island's numbers).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 17, 2021, 05:24:26 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on May 16, 2021, 07:06:34 PM
Quote from: Puget on April 16, 2021, 03:47:07 PM
Check out this cool customized risk calculation tool: https://www.microcovid.org/

Quote from: Stockmann on April 16, 2021, 03:18:19 PM
QuoteThere have been zero super spreader events tied to events in exclusively outdoor spaces.

I'm not sure, does that nomination party at a White House garden count?

No, it doesn't-- they also had spent time indoors beforehand (many unmasked) and that's where most/all the spread is believed to have occurred.

Fair enough. Note that I'm not questioning that outdoors transmission is less likely, just that it's unlikely the risk is negligible, at least in hotspots - so people not wearing facemasks in hotspots increases everyone else's risk, including outdoors.

The best estimates I've seen are that its probably well, well under 1 percent of overall transmission. Even within that subset, the risk of casual contact is very low compared to long conversations a foot away, or jogging with someone for an hour.

I don't have a problem with mask mandates outside, as long as they are enforced in sensible ways. The bigger problem is when fears about outdoor transmission lead to counterproductive things like closing beaches or parks.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on May 18, 2021, 10:03:54 AM
Really interesting piece of data journalism here applying market segmentation to the reasons people haven't been vaccinated. This is clearly a much better approach than just labeling everyone as "anti-vax", as that only describes 14% of the US population, vs. 21% who fall into three other unvaccinated groups that are potentially much more amenable to vaccination with the right messaging and removal of barriers: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/18/opinion/covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage


Quote from: Caracal on May 17, 2021, 05:24:26 AM
The best estimates I've seen are that its probably well, well under 1 percent of overall transmission. Even within that subset, the risk of casual contact is very low compared to long conversations a foot away, or jogging with someone for an hour.
In fact, the actual documented number may approach zero-- turns out a lot of cases logged as "outdoor" were miss classified (e.g., all construction sites were classified as "outdoors" but the actual construction site cases were all in already enclosed high-rises).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on May 18, 2021, 10:33:58 AM
Quote from: Puget on May 18, 2021, 10:03:54 AM
Really interesting piece of data journalism here applying market segmentation to the reasons people haven't been vaccinated. This is clearly a much better approach than just labeling everyone as "anti-vax", as that only describes 14% of the US population, vs. 21% who fall into three other unvaccinated groups that are potentially much more amenable to vaccination with the right messaging and removal of barriers: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/18/opinion/covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Are they really amenable, though? There are states already basically paying people to get vaccinated, and it's always been free, so "cost" to me reeks of excuse. Esp. when comparing with anecdotes in developing countries of old people literally walking for hours to get immunized, or waiting in line for hours. Also, same goes for "wariness" - vaccines like Moderna, J&J, Pfizer (and, for that matter, Sputnik V and AZ) have undergone a lot of scrutiny and literally millions of doses have been administered in places with freedom of the press, etc. At this point, risks on the same scale as those of Covid itself for people for whom they're not counterindicated are simply not plausible. Esp. when there are multiple vaccines available - I get not wanting J&J if you're a healthy, O+ blood type teenage girl, but there are in fact alternatives.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 18, 2021, 10:36:16 AM
Quote from: Puget on May 18, 2021, 10:03:54 AM
Really interesting piece of data journalism here applying market segmentation to the reasons people haven't been vaccinated. This is clearly a much better approach than just labeling everyone as "anti-vax", as that only describes 14% of the US population, vs. 21% who fall into three other unvaccinated groups that are potentially much more amenable to vaccination with the right messaging and removal of barriers: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/18/opinion/covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage


Quote from: Caracal on May 17, 2021, 05:24:26 AM
The best estimates I've seen are that its probably well, well under 1 percent of overall transmission. Even within that subset, the risk of casual contact is very low compared to long conversations a foot away, or jogging with someone for an hour.
In fact, the actual documented number may approach zero-- turns out a lot of cases logged as "outdoor" were miss classified (e.g., all construction sites were classified as "outdoors" but the actual construction site cases were all in already enclosed high-rises).

Right. And the point isn't that outdoor transmission can't happen. Of course it can, rare events happen all the time. The problem is that the guidance didn't stress how rare it actually was and the extent to which outdoor activities were dramatically safer than indoor ones. There was this fear that if you emphasized that point too much and said that small outdoor activities carried very limited risk, everyone would take that as license to do dangerous things. That was a huge screw up.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on May 18, 2021, 12:34:01 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on May 18, 2021, 10:33:58 AM
Quote from: Puget on May 18, 2021, 10:03:54 AM
Really interesting piece of data journalism here applying market segmentation to the reasons people haven't been vaccinated. This is clearly a much better approach than just labeling everyone as "anti-vax", as that only describes 14% of the US population, vs. 21% who fall into three other unvaccinated groups that are potentially much more amenable to vaccination with the right messaging and removal of barriers: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/18/opinion/covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Are they really amenable, though? There are states already basically paying people to get vaccinated, and it's always been free, so "cost" to me reeks of excuse. Esp. when comparing with anecdotes in developing countries of old people literally walking for hours to get immunized, or waiting in line for hours. Also, same goes for "wariness" - vaccines like Moderna, J&J, Pfizer (and, for that matter, Sputnik V and AZ) have undergone a lot of scrutiny and literally millions of doses have been administered in places with freedom of the press, etc. At this point, risks on the same scale as those of Covid itself for people for whom they're not counterindicated are simply not plausible. Esp. when there are multiple vaccines available - I get not wanting J&J if you're a healthy, O+ blood type teenage girl, but there are in fact alternatives.

It doesn't matter what you think they should know or be willing to do, it matters what they actual know and are willing to do-- if you want them vaccinated you need to meet people where they are, not judge them.  People in the "cost" don't know it is free (many are uninsured, and even if they have heard something about it being free may assume that means "free if you have insurance" like so many other "free" things like flu shots) and/or are unable to take time off or have a predictable enough work schedule. It isn't just taking time off for the actual appointment, but for side effects-- I was completely out flat on my couch for a day after my second dose, and can't imagine what it would have been like to have to somehow do a full day of (often manual) labor while feeling like that. Have a little empathy for folks that don't share the privileges that most of us here do.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on May 19, 2021, 05:54:19 AM
Quote from: Puget on May 18, 2021, 12:34:01 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on May 18, 2021, 10:33:58 AM
Quote from: Puget on May 18, 2021, 10:03:54 AM
Really interesting piece of data journalism here applying market segmentation to the reasons people haven't been vaccinated. This is clearly a much better approach than just labeling everyone as "anti-vax", as that only describes 14% of the US population, vs. 21% who fall into three other unvaccinated groups that are potentially much more amenable to vaccination with the right messaging and removal of barriers: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/18/opinion/covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Are they really amenable, though? There are states already basically paying people to get vaccinated, and it's always been free, so "cost" to me reeks of excuse. Esp. when comparing with anecdotes in developing countries of old people literally walking for hours to get immunized, or waiting in line for hours. Also, same goes for "wariness" - vaccines like Moderna, J&J, Pfizer (and, for that matter, Sputnik V and AZ) have undergone a lot of scrutiny and literally millions of doses have been administered in places with freedom of the press, etc. At this point, risks on the same scale as those of Covid itself for people for whom they're not counterindicated are simply not plausible. Esp. when there are multiple vaccines available - I get not wanting J&J if you're a healthy, O+ blood type teenage girl, but there are in fact alternatives.

It doesn't matter what you think they should know or be willing to do, it matters what they actual know and are willing to do-- if you want them vaccinated you need to meet people where they are, not judge them.  People in the "cost" don't know it is free (many are uninsured, and even if they have heard something about it being free may assume that means "free if you have insurance" like so many other "free" things like flu shots) and/or are unable to take time off or have a predictable enough work schedule. It isn't just taking time off for the actual appointment, but for side effects-- I was completely out flat on my couch for a day after my second dose, and can't imagine what it would have been like to have to somehow do a full day of (often manual) labor while feeling like that. Have a little empathy for folks that don't share the privileges that most of us here do.

I also suspect that if you have a job that has meant that, by necessity, your work has had to go on much as before, that probably changes the way you think about this significantly, I assume by becoming pretty fatalistic about the chance that you might get COVID. The closest I can come to understanding this is the way we thought about our decision to send our young kid back to daycare. They've done ok with precautions, but we basically had to take the attitude that, while transmission risk in children seems to be lower than adults, our kid might well get COVID and transmit it to us.

The difference is that we had the ability to limit our risk dramatically in all kinds of other aspects of our lives. I imagine if you had to take on risks you couldn't fully control in almost all aspects of your life, while this pandemic was going on, you'd really have to just accept that your chance of getting COVID was fairly high, take precautions, and move on with your life.

Obviously, from a strictly logical risk assessment perspective, someone like that should be desperate to get the vaccine, but I can see how the psychology necessary to make it through the last year while very exposed to getting sick would result in in people not taking that attitude, especially if their schedule means getting vaccinated would be inconvenient and difficult.

Now that I'm vaccinated I should really make a bunch of doctor's appointments. Nothing particularly alarming-at least not that I know of-just stuff I should get checked. Why have I not done this yet? I dunno, some combination of laziness and anxiety. Will I do it? Yes. If someone from my doctor's office just showed up at my door and said "hey, want us to just take some blood right now and then we can make your physical?" I'd do it right then.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on May 21, 2021, 08:36:49 AM
Quote from: Puget on May 18, 2021, 12:34:01 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on May 18, 2021, 10:33:58 AM
Quote from: Puget on May 18, 2021, 10:03:54 AM
Really interesting piece of data journalism here applying market segmentation to the reasons people haven't been vaccinated. This is clearly a much better approach than just labeling everyone as "anti-vax", as that only describes 14% of the US population, vs. 21% who fall into three other unvaccinated groups that are potentially much more amenable to vaccination with the right messaging and removal of barriers: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/18/opinion/covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Are they really amenable, though? There are states already basically paying people to get vaccinated, and it's always been free, so "cost" to me reeks of excuse. Esp. when comparing with anecdotes in developing countries of old people literally walking for hours to get immunized, or waiting in line for hours. Also, same goes for "wariness" - vaccines like Moderna, J&J, Pfizer (and, for that matter, Sputnik V and AZ) have undergone a lot of scrutiny and literally millions of doses have been administered in places with freedom of the press, etc. At this point, risks on the same scale as those of Covid itself for people for whom they're not counterindicated are simply not plausible. Esp. when there are multiple vaccines available - I get not wanting J&J if you're a healthy, O+ blood type teenage girl, but there are in fact alternatives.

It doesn't matter what you think they should know or be willing to do, it matters what they actual know and are willing to do-- if you want them vaccinated you need to meet people where they are, not judge them.  People in the "cost" don't know it is free (many are uninsured, and even if they have heard something about it being free may assume that means "free if you have insurance" like so many other "free" things like flu shots) and/or are unable to take time off or have a predictable enough work schedule. It isn't just taking time off for the actual appointment, but for side effects-- I was completely out flat on my couch for a day after my second dose, and can't imagine what it would have been like to have to somehow do a full day of (often manual) labor while feeling like that. Have a little empathy for folks that don't share the privileges that most of us here do.

I'm in a shitty location so neither my wife nor I are vaccinated because it's not been available to us. So yeah, I'm rather short on empathy for people to whom it's available, who are even being bribed to take it, claim not to be outright refusing it, but haven't got it yet because reasons. I most certainly am not feeling privileged compared to people to whom it's been available for a while now. For perspective, I used to live near a hospital and could her the ambulance sirens getting more and more and more frequent as things got worse and worse - and then they nearly stopped, not because things had gotten better but because there were no more beds. Obviously some have it worse (the millions of Covid dead in the world, for starters), but I'm not feeling very privileged compared to people who can just walk into a CVS and get vaccinated with excellent vaccines. And yes, I know working class people here, who do manual labor, to whom it's been available and who have in fact gotten vaccinated - I'd bet good money that at significantly greater inconvenience than their American counterparts face and at any rate they're not being given money, free beer, pot, etc to do it.
I do tend to assume that when something can be done for free or people are even being bribed to do it and don't do it then they do not in fact want to do it. I'm not against people being given the day off, paying them, etc, but I'm very sceptical that a large majority of those who aren't already vaccinated but aren't openly anti-vaxxers would then get immunized.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on May 28, 2021, 01:52:37 PM
Turns out that Idaho's Lt governor banned mask mandates when the governor was out of town. The governor promptly repealed the ban. Here is the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/us/idaho-mandate.html
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on May 28, 2021, 01:59:01 PM
How information about race-based health disparities affects policy preferences: Evidence from a survey experiment about the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621002161?via%3Dihub=)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on June 28, 2021, 10:34:21 AM
A former college roommate is now officially part of the 5% of the population who get Covid-19 after vaccination. But his symptoms were limited to those of a minor head cold, so there's a good chance that the vaccine did what it's supposed to do.

My employer is requiring vaccination for all employees and students prior to the start of the fall semester. I was vaccinated in March 2021, probably had a mild case of Covid-19 in April 2020, and now know I have antibodies because of a research study that I'm participating in. But I doubt the fall semester will be a return to business as usual, so I'm continuing with my hospitalization prevention strategy of running, despite the summer heat.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on June 29, 2021, 08:52:30 AM
NYC appears to be open for business as usual. The vaccination rates, however, are abysmal as only 50.6% of the population is fully vaccinated; 55.6% have received at least one dose. Large swaths of the city have vaccination rates of 30-45%.

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-vaccines.page

Politicians, stop gloating about the city being fully open:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/29/new-york-city-mayor-bill-de-blasio-says-the-city-will-re-open-100percent-on-july-1.html

Get your fxxxxxg heads out of your bleeping azzes! Our neighboring states have far higher vaccination rates.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mythbuster on June 29, 2021, 09:07:28 AM
My grad student's husband just tested COVID positive and can't smell anything. I've told her to stay home from the lab until he at least  stops having respiratory symptoms. I'm not sure if she's been vaccinated or not. We will just keep having Zoom lab meeting for the near future just in case.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on June 29, 2021, 08:01:16 PM
Masks are recommended indoors even for the vaccinated.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/29/health/coronavirus-delta-variant-masks.html

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 29, 2021, 08:06:58 PM
Quote from: Langue_doc on June 29, 2021, 08:01:16 PM
Masks are recommended indoors even for the vaccinated.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/29/health/coronavirus-delta-variant-masks.html

I read about this today. I'm not sure it will go over well down here.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on June 30, 2021, 04:03:11 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 29, 2021, 08:06:58 PM
Quote from: Langue_doc on June 29, 2021, 08:01:16 PM
Masks are recommended indoors even for the vaccinated.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/29/health/coronavirus-delta-variant-masks.html

I read about this today. I'm not sure it will go over well down here.

It isn't going to go over well here either, especially with a mayor who thinks that democracy has been restored with the removal of restrictions.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on June 30, 2021, 06:40:59 AM
I continue to mask indoors.  Fewer than 40% of folks in my area are fully vaccinated.  I am concerned about variants, too, given that low number.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on June 30, 2021, 08:53:02 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on June 29, 2021, 08:01:16 PM
Masks are recommended indoors even for the vaccinated.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/29/health/coronavirus-delta-variant-masks.html

The actual text of that article belies that summary. The WHO serves all kinds of useful purposes, but it isn't designed to give personalized health advice. Bottom line is that two doses of vaccines seem to work just about as well against Delta as against any of the other variants. Nothing wrong with taking extra precautions, but there's no reason for vaccinated people to worry more now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morden on July 16, 2021, 09:15:53 AM
Canada seems to be improving as more people get vaccinated, but US rates are going up again in many places. Is it overall vaccination rates or variants?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/covid-19-in-the-u-s-how-do-canada-s-provinces-rank-against-american-states-1.5051033 (https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/covid-19-in-the-u-s-how-do-canada-s-provinces-rank-against-american-states-1.5051033)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on July 16, 2021, 12:36:44 PM
Or unvaccinated maskless numbskulls?

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hibush on July 16, 2021, 12:47:22 PM
Quote from: Morden on July 16, 2021, 09:15:53 AM
Canada seems to be improving as more people get vaccinated, but US rates are going up again in many places. Is it overall vaccination rates or variants?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/covid-19-in-the-u-s-how-do-canada-s-provinces-rank-against-american-states-1.5051033 (https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/covid-19-in-the-u-s-how-do-canada-s-provinces-rank-against-american-states-1.5051033)


Trudeau said today that things may be so under control in a month or so that it'll be possible to let in the restless hordes south of the border.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 16, 2021, 01:16:30 PM
We're rushing into a new surge in our state.  Nursing homes and the like are starting to isolate again.  Looks like vaccinations are starting to trend up a bit, so maybe the deteriorating situation is starting to get people's attention.  It didn't have to be this way, though.  Our governor has been consistently urging vaccination all along.  Contrary to what some around here might imagine, he is very much a Republican, BTW.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on July 16, 2021, 04:44:22 PM
I want us to follow France's model: want to go inside restaurants/theaters/clubs/etc.?  Then, you MUST be vaccinated & show proof.
I don't know what their plan is for the 16 and under crowd though.  Maybe prove that you're too young to be vaccinated yet?  Mandatory masking?

I think the start of the K12 school year is going to be a rough transition.  I hope the vast majority of folks who can get vaccinated will do so.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on July 16, 2021, 10:25:47 PM
Are there any countries in the world, or parts of any countries, that are actually requiring citizens to vax, excepting those who would have a medical reason not to do so?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 17, 2021, 12:31:48 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 16, 2021, 10:25:47 PM
Are there any countries in the world, or parts of any countries, that are actually requiring citizens to vax, excepting those who would have a medical reason not to do so?

I haven't yet heard of any.  It's worth noting that vaccine hesitancy is a problem in many countries.  It's not just an American phenomenon.  Our particular partisan politics may influence what vaccine hesitancy looks like here, but a phenomenon this widespread globally clearly wasn't created by them.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on July 17, 2021, 12:47:48 PM
Yeah, 'tis important to not ascribe vaccine hesitancy to political persuasion. Correlation is not causation.

-People have different information. I don't see that governments have been good at spreading information about the risk of getting Covid.

-People have different attitudes toward risk. Some are gamblers, and some are like me and the others on this board who don't like risk and get vaccinated.

-People in different age groups are subject to different costs, such as death. Before judging people's decisions on average, 'twould be good to know the distribution of the unvaccinated by age.

In addition, if the younger individuals, less subject to cost, are unvaccinated and get Covid, they will contribute to herd immunity. At least in the US, there is no shortage of the vaccine, and anybody who thinks the risk is too great can get vaccinated at zero monetary cost.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on July 18, 2021, 06:23:26 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 16, 2021, 10:25:47 PM
Are there any countries in the world, or parts of any countries, that are actually requiring citizens to vax, excepting those who would have a medical reason not to do so?

Yes, Russia. Moscow Oblast is imposing some pretty serious fines for those in certain categories that don't vaccinate (and years behind bars for using forged vaccine certificates), and certain categories, like some retail workers, can be fired for not being vaccinated. This was done after bribery (paying people to be immunized) failed. I'm no fan of people's alleged right to make others sick, so to me this (after purely voluntary vaccination and bribery both failed) seems to me like a no-nonsense approach.

This actually ties in with something that I find deeply worrying - the overall (including both initial containment and immunization) best Covid response on the planet was surely that of Singapore, which had pretty good containment via social distancing, contact tracing, travel restrictions etc, and a rather rapid immunization program. Authoritarian Singapore beat basically every democracy on the planet. Chinese propagandists are probably having a field day portraying democracies as choosing to have dead voters instead of inconvenienced voters, particularly as immunization stalls in some democracies and given India's catastrophic second wave.
The EU in particular has been a spectacular failure, both at a central EU level and in the performance of quite a few member states. Initial containment in several member states was among the worst in the world, and far behind authoritarian developing countries like China and Vietnam (also worse than democracies like Taiwan, to be fair). Scenes of the Dutch setting testing centers on fire may be the epitome of the failure, but hardly the only symptom. Then immunization got off to a disastrously slow start, soon lagging behind Chile and Serbia, while a feudal state, the UAE, rolled out the second-fastest vaccination program in the world. Finally, and perhaps most surprising, there's the vaccine-development failure. The US, Germany, India (well, allegedly democratic) and the UK are the only democracies that have developed their own vaccines - and those are all rich (UK, Germany), huge (India) or both (the US). Except for Germany, every singly EU country lags in vaccine development behind India, Russia, China and Cuba. The case of Cuba is particularly dramatic, as a single-party state island too poor to provide its citizens with flour beat the entire Western Hemisphere save for the US alone in vaccine development. In contrast, plenty of wealthy democracies, like Japan, Switzerland, Australia or South Korea are MIA in vaccine development. The case has sometimes been made that in the long run R&D requires democracy to fluorish,  but covid vaccine development stands as a pretty strong counterexample, while giving Russia its biggest soft power victory since Yuri Gagarin. Given democracy was already under assault or already rolled back in quite a few places before the pandemic, none of this bodes well for democracy around the world.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 19, 2021, 04:57:29 AM
Quote from: dismalist on July 17, 2021, 12:47:48 PM

In addition, if the younger individuals, less subject to cost, are unvaccinated and get Covid, they will contribute to herd immunity. At least in the US, there is no shortage of the vaccine, and anybody who thinks the risk is too great can get vaccinated at zero monetary cost.

Vaccination immunity is more protective. Although, actually it appears that getting the virus and then being vaccinated provides the strongest protection.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on July 19, 2021, 05:26:15 AM
The "Don't mask, don't tell" bunch are the ones that have worried me most.

I'm now thinking I was right not to resume tours this summer.

For a bit, I was second-guessing myself for being too cautious.

But now I don't think so, sorry to have to say.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on July 19, 2021, 05:51:54 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on July 18, 2021, 06:23:26 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 16, 2021, 10:25:47 PM
Are there any countries in the world, or parts of any countries, that are actually requiring citizens to vax, excepting those who would have a medical reason not to do so?

Yes, Russia. Moscow Oblast is imposing some pretty serious fines for those in certain categories that don't vaccinate (and years behind bars for using forged vaccine certificates), and certain categories, like some retail workers, can be fired for not being vaccinated. This was done after bribery (paying people to be immunized) failed. I'm no fan of people's alleged right to make others sick, so to me this (after purely voluntary vaccination and bribery both failed) seems to me like a no-nonsense approach.

This actually ties in with something that I find deeply worrying - the overall (including both initial containment and immunization) best Covid response on the planet was surely that of Singapore, which had pretty good containment via social distancing, contact tracing, travel restrictions etc, and a rather rapid immunization program. Authoritarian Singapore beat basically every democracy on the planet. Chinese propagandists are probably having a field day portraying democracies as choosing to have dead voters instead of inconvenienced voters, particularly as immunization stalls in some democracies and given India's catastrophic second wave.
The EU in particular has been a spectacular failure, both at a central EU level and in the performance of quite a few member states. Initial containment in several member states was among the worst in the world, and far behind authoritarian developing countries like China and Vietnam (also worse than democracies like Taiwan, to be fair). Scenes of the Dutch setting testing centers on fire may be the epitome of the failure, but hardly the only symptom. Then immunization got off to a disastrously slow start, soon lagging behind Chile and Serbia, while a feudal state, the UAE, rolled out the second-fastest vaccination program in the world. Finally, and perhaps most surprising, there's the vaccine-development failure. The US, Germany, India (well, allegedly democratic) and the UK are the only democracies that have developed their own vaccines - and those are all rich (UK, Germany), huge (India) or both (the US). Except for Germany, every singly EU country lags in vaccine development behind India, Russia, China and Cuba. The case of Cuba is particularly dramatic, as a single-party state island too poor to provide its citizens with flour beat the entire Western Hemisphere save for the US alone in vaccine development. In contrast, plenty of wealthy democracies, like Japan, Switzerland, Australia or South Korea are MIA in vaccine development. The case has sometimes been made that in the long run R&D requires democracy to fluorish,  but covid vaccine development stands as a pretty strong counterexample, while giving Russia its biggest soft power victory since Yuri Gagarin. Given democracy was already under assault or already rolled back in quite a few places before the pandemic, none of this bodes well for democracy around the world.

I don't think ordinary people around the world, whether in democracies or non-democracies, have fond feelings for Russia's kleptocracy, despite the existence of a Russia-produced vaccine.

Vietnam took the wise step of rapidly sealing its borders, instituting contact tracing, movement restrictions, etc. when the PRC was downplaying the seriousness of SARS-CoV-2 early in the pandemic. Vietnamese leaders knew not to believe early claims by the CCP given the previous SARS outbreak.

In Singapore, a small island, it is even easier to impose quarantine measures. Although the state is moderately or lightly (depending on one's definition) authoritarian, it has a decades-long reputation for effective, non-corrupt government.

Vietnam, Singapore, Cuba, etc. have public health systems that in normal conditions are far more effective and efficient than the system in the USA. Generally speaking these countries' pandemic responses were not hobbled  by feckless, narcissistic political leadership at the very top, as was the case with the USA. While the USA brought to market one vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 via a collaboration between Moderna and NAIAD, it was BioNTech (German) that developed the other; Pfizer did the clinical trials and manufacturing.

Regarding China's two main vaccines, Sinvac and Sinopharm, their efficacy is noticeably lower than that for other vaccines. And, per an acquaintance who works for an international public health agency, China provides a country with one or two million free vaccine doses, then charges prices for additional doses that are higher than the market prices for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. The problem these countries face is not being able to access supplies of the latter, while China is quite happy to export what its pharmaceutical factories are producing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 19, 2021, 06:18:27 AM
Quote from: mamselle on July 19, 2021, 05:26:15 AM
The "Don't mask, don't tell" bunch are the ones that have worried me most.

I'm now thinking I was right not to resume tours this summer.

For a bit, I was second-guessing myself for being too cautious.

But now I don't think so, sorry to have to say.

M.

The tricky part now is that caution has become much more of a personal judgement call, at least for the vaccinated. It can't just be "don't travel on planes." Now it has to be about weighing your enjoyment of things against the risk. It's a hard thing to knowI definitely know people who are weighing risks in ways that strike me as irrationally over-cautious. But, perhaps that's unfair and they just value things differently than I do. There's also an element
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 19, 2021, 07:29:08 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on July 18, 2021, 06:23:26 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 16, 2021, 10:25:47 PM
Are there any countries in the world, or parts of any countries, that are actually requiring citizens to vax, excepting those who would have a medical reason not to do so?

Yes, Russia. Moscow Oblast is imposing some pretty serious fines for those in certain categories that don't vaccinate (and years behind bars for using forged vaccine certificates), and certain categories, like some retail workers, can be fired for not being vaccinated.

Well that ought to make it easier for advocates of mandatory vaccination policies in the U.S. to sell the idea here!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 19, 2021, 07:32:28 AM
Quote from: spork on July 19, 2021, 05:51:54 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on July 18, 2021, 06:23:26 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 16, 2021, 10:25:47 PM
Are there any countries in the world, or parts of any countries, that are actually requiring citizens to vax, excepting those who would have a medical reason not to do so?

Yes, Russia. Moscow Oblast is imposing some pretty serious fines for those in certain categories that don't vaccinate (and years behind bars for using forged vaccine certificates), and certain categories, like some retail workers, can be fired for not being vaccinated. This was done after bribery (paying people to be immunized) failed. I'm no fan of people's alleged right to make others sick, so to me this (after purely voluntary vaccination and bribery both failed) seems to me like a no-nonsense approach.

This actually ties in with something that I find deeply worrying - the overall (including both initial containment and immunization) best Covid response on the planet was surely that of Singapore, which had pretty good containment via social distancing, contact tracing, travel restrictions etc, and a rather rapid immunization program. Authoritarian Singapore beat basically every democracy on the planet. Chinese propagandists are probably having a field day portraying democracies as choosing to have dead voters instead of inconvenienced voters, particularly as immunization stalls in some democracies and given India's catastrophic second wave.
The EU in particular has been a spectacular failure, both at a central EU level and in the performance of quite a few member states. Initial containment in several member states was among the worst in the world, and far behind authoritarian developing countries like China and Vietnam (also worse than democracies like Taiwan, to be fair). Scenes of the Dutch setting testing centers on fire may be the epitome of the failure, but hardly the only symptom. Then immunization got off to a disastrously slow start, soon lagging behind Chile and Serbia, while a feudal state, the UAE, rolled out the second-fastest vaccination program in the world. Finally, and perhaps most surprising, there's the vaccine-development failure. The US, Germany, India (well, allegedly democratic) and the UK are the only democracies that have developed their own vaccines - and those are all rich (UK, Germany), huge (India) or both (the US). Except for Germany, every singly EU country lags in vaccine development behind India, Russia, China and Cuba. The case of Cuba is particularly dramatic, as a single-party state island too poor to provide its citizens with flour beat the entire Western Hemisphere save for the US alone in vaccine development. In contrast, plenty of wealthy democracies, like Japan, Switzerland, Australia or South Korea are MIA in vaccine development. The case has sometimes been made that in the long run R&D requires democracy to fluorish,  but covid vaccine development stands as a pretty strong counterexample, while giving Russia its biggest soft power victory since Yuri Gagarin. Given democracy was already under assault or already rolled back in quite a few places before the pandemic, none of this bodes well for democracy around the world.

I don't think ordinary people around the world, whether in democracies or non-democracies, have fond feelings for Russia's kleptocracy, despite the existence of a Russia-produced vaccine.

Vietnam took the wise step of rapidly sealing its borders, instituting contact tracing, movement restrictions, etc. when the PRC was downplaying the seriousness of SARS-CoV-2 early in the pandemic. Vietnamese leaders knew not to believe early claims by the CCP given the previous SARS outbreak.

In Singapore, a small island, it is even easier to impose quarantine measures. Although the state is moderately or lightly (depending on one's definition) authoritarian, it has a decades-long reputation for effective, non-corrupt government.

Vietnam, Singapore, Cuba, etc. have public health systems that in normal conditions are far more effective and efficient than the system in the USA. Generally speaking these countries' pandemic responses were not hobbled  by feckless, narcissistic political leadership at the very top, as was the case with the USA. While the USA brought to market one vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 via a collaboration between Moderna and NAIAD, it was BioNTech (German) that developed the other; Pfizer did the clinical trials and manufacturing.

Regarding China's two main vaccines, Sinvac and Sinopharm, their efficacy is noticeably lower than that for other vaccines. And, per an acquaintance who works for an international public health agency, China provides a country with one or two million free vaccine doses, then charges prices for additional doses that are higher than the market prices for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. The problem these countries face is not being able to access supplies of the latter, while China is quite happy to export what its pharmaceutical factories are producing.

Singapore, and Cuba also have the advantage of being rather small countries.  Vietnam has a much larger population than the other two, but it's still smaller than, say, Brazil and India, and it doesn't spread across a large land area.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on July 19, 2021, 08:40:53 AM
Also, the cultural memory of SARS grounds several of those populations with a shared experiential narrative that they are less likely to mythologize or try to magically think away.

That's the serious downside to U.S. exceptionalism. Those who buy it, and think they're being cute and rad by flaunting real possibilities, don't realize how absurd they seem to those in other places that have dealt with such issues in the recent past and have an institutional awareness of the consequences.

M. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on July 19, 2021, 09:50:12 AM
In global health circles, the tail is often told that smallpox in the wild was extirpated after the remaining group of Somalis were vaccinated.  The story goes that they were vaccinated at gunpoint.  Maybe that's apocryphal, maybe it's not. 

There were examples of an outbreak in the US in 1901 in which NYC police held people down so they could be vaccinated. (https://www.npr.org/2011/04/05/135121451/how-the-pox-epidemic-changed-vaccination-rules)

I would not half mind trying that approach here with all the MAGA hat wearing mouth breathers forever whinging about their freeeeeeeeeeeee-dumbs.

You cannot drive drunk.  You cannot purchase hand grenades. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.  There are already government imposed requirements for vaccines to enter school, join the military etc.  You cannot knowingly pass on HIV to an uninformed sexual partner.  There is no shortage of things you cannot do in order to protect the greater public good.

You lot that are thicker than 2 short planks can take your free-dumbs and your "rights" and shove them straight up your hosepipe.  The vaccines are safe, they are effective, and your right to worship of an orange sociopath does not trump my right to stay alive.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on July 19, 2021, 09:59:28 AM
As my dad used to say, "Your right to swing your fist stops where the other guy's nose begins."

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 19, 2021, 10:21:20 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on July 19, 2021, 09:50:12 AM
In global health circles, the tail is often told that smallpox in the wild was extirpated after the remaining group of Somalis were vaccinated.  The story goes that they were vaccinated at gunpoint.  Maybe that's apocryphal, maybe it's not. 

There were examples of an outbreak in the US in 1901 in which NYC police held people down so they could be vaccinated. (https://www.npr.org/2011/04/05/135121451/how-the-pox-epidemic-changed-vaccination-rules)

I would not half mind trying that approach here with all the MAGA hat wearing mouth breathers forever whinging about their freeeeeeeeeeeee-dumbs.

You cannot drive drunk.  You cannot purchase hand grenades. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.  There are already government imposed requirements for vaccines to enter school, join the military etc.  You cannot knowingly pass on HIV to an uninformed sexual partner.  There is no shortage of things you cannot do in order to protect the greater public good.

You lot that are thicker than 2 short planks can take your free-dumbs and your "rights" and shove them straight up your hosepipe.  The vaccines are safe, they are effective, and your right to worship of an orange sociopath does not trump my right to stay alive.

You probably know this, but it would just be a really bad idea. The level of coercion and force required would be impossible to muster, and morally repugnant if you could. Workplace and school requirements for vaccination are a much more reasonable and effective approach.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 19, 2021, 10:50:52 AM
Quote from: Caracal on July 19, 2021, 10:21:20 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on July 19, 2021, 09:50:12 AM
In global health circles, the tail is often told that smallpox in the wild was extirpated after the remaining group of Somalis were vaccinated.  The story goes that they were vaccinated at gunpoint.  Maybe that's apocryphal, maybe it's not. 

There were examples of an outbreak in the US in 1901 in which NYC police held people down so they could be vaccinated. (https://www.npr.org/2011/04/05/135121451/how-the-pox-epidemic-changed-vaccination-rules)

I would not half mind trying that approach here with all the MAGA hat wearing mouth breathers forever whinging about their freeeeeeeeeeeee-dumbs.

You cannot drive drunk.  You cannot purchase hand grenades. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.  There are already government imposed requirements for vaccines to enter school, join the military etc.  You cannot knowingly pass on HIV to an uninformed sexual partner.  There is no shortage of things you cannot do in order to protect the greater public good.

You lot that are thicker than 2 short planks can take your free-dumbs and your "rights" and shove them straight up your hosepipe.  The vaccines are safe, they are effective, and your right to worship of an orange sociopath does not trump my right to stay alive.

You probably know this, but it would just be a really bad idea. The level of coercion and force required would be impossible to muster, and morally repugnant if you could. Workplace and school requirements for vaccination are a much more reasonable and effective approach.

And once again, it isn't just Trump fans who are the problem.  Vaccine hestiancy has been an issue across most of the world.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on July 19, 2021, 10:56:42 AM
Quote from: mamselle on July 19, 2021, 09:59:28 AM
As my dad used to say, "Your right to swing your fist stops where the other guy's nose begins."

M.

I think I know what you're saying here, but those who are vaccine hesitant could, not unreasonably, use the same sort of argument about efforts to mandate that they put something into their bodies that they are not sure about. 

I've made it clear enough already that I am very much for vaccination, and very concerned and frustrated at the dangerous misguidedness of those who are resisting it.  But I don't feel entitled to the same smug sense of superiority that some are giving off about the issue.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on July 19, 2021, 11:07:33 AM
Yeah, with effectiveness around 95%, the vaccine, now widely available, has pretty much turned the public health problem into a private health problem.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on July 19, 2021, 11:12:10 AM
Quote from: spork on July 19, 2021, 05:51:54 AM

I don't think ordinary people around the world, whether in democracies or non-democracies, have fond feelings for Russia's kleptocracy, despite the existence of a Russia-produced vaccine.

Not "fondness," but probably a new-found respect. There are plenty of kleptocracies around the world, but few are making effective vaccines. Vaccine diplomacy is a thing and the countries using Sputnik V include US allies such as Mexico.
Russian vaccine success ties into a narrative that Putin may be an unpleasant guy, but he gets things done and has made his country strong, and now not just in the battlefield, but also in R&D. For people around the world getting Sputnik V because there aren't enough Western vaccines to go around, or even because they prefer it to Astra Zeneca, it's not a trivial matter.

QuoteRegarding China's two main vaccines, Sinvac and Sinopharm, their efficacy is noticeably lower than that for other vaccines. And, per an acquaintance who works for an international public health agency, China provides a country with one or two million free vaccine doses, then charges prices for additional doses that are higher than the market prices for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. The problem these countries face is not being able to access supplies of the latter, while China is quite happy to export what its pharmaceutical factories are producing.

Yes, the Chinese vaccines are of low efficacy. But even those vaccines are more than, say, Canada, France, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, etc managed to develop. Yes, many of them (and others) have a problem with access to Moderna and Pfizer, but part of the problem is their own failure to develop vaccines, and they are all wealthier and less isolated than Cuba. Switzerland is a particularly notable failure, as it was badly affected by Covid, boasts a well-regarded R&D sector and has a huge pharmaceutical sector.
Also Israel (probably the only democracy to have become stronger due to the pandemic), despite not developing vaccines, managed to set up a world-beating vaccination program, which other wealthy, small countries like Norway, Sweden or Qatar failed to do.

QuoteSingapore, and Cuba also have the advantage of being rather small countries.  Vietnam has a much larger population than the other two, but it's still smaller than, say, Brazil and India, and it doesn't spread across a large land area.

Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands are also small and fared badly. Gibraltar, San Marino and Andorra are even smaller, and fared disastrously. Assorted Scottish islands are more remote than Singapore or Cuba, yet were reached by Covid early and badly. Britain itself is an island. Unlike Vietnam, none of these places have a border with China.

Quote from: mamselle on July 19, 2021, 08:40:53 AM
Also, the cultural memory of SARS grounds several of those populations with a shared experiential narrative that they are less likely to mythologize or try to magically think away. 

But Mexico and Brazil have also had recent experience dealing with serious outbreaks of infectious diseases, yet they had presidents saying vaccines make you grow horns or that covid can be warded off by two dollar bills and Jesus stamps. in Southern Mexico, mobs burned down clinics  because reasons. So for some reason East Asia and Africa (except Tanzania, whose Covid response makes even Brazil look good) applied the lessons from past scares, and others didn't.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on July 19, 2021, 11:12:45 AM
Quote from: dismalist on July 19, 2021, 11:07:33 AM
Yeah, with effectiveness around 95%, the vaccine, now widely available, has pretty much turned the public health problem into a private health problem.

But as is traditional in the USA, the costs of private decisions will be socialized.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on July 19, 2021, 11:22:01 AM
Quote from: spork on July 19, 2021, 11:12:45 AM
Quote from: dismalist on July 19, 2021, 11:07:33 AM
Yeah, with effectiveness around 95%, the vaccine, now widely available, has pretty much turned the public health problem into a private health problem.

But as is traditional in the USA, the costs of private decisions will be socialized.

I don't think those costs will be that great from now. The 65 and over crowd who go to hospital before they die and cost extra Medicare money are already 75% fully vaccinated and 85% with at least one dose.  The younger will not be so badly affected on average and many will have private health insurance.

Look, we all see the same light. The question is whether that is the light at the end of the tunnel or the headlamp of the oncoming train!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on July 19, 2021, 12:08:20 PM
I don't know what Spork intended to say, but I can certainly say that the costs that will be socialized are not primarily monetary costs, but the overall costs of people who don't take public health measures — costs in death, isolation, and difficulty — will be borne by all of us. Private decisions, public costs.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on July 19, 2021, 12:23:52 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on July 19, 2021, 12:08:20 PM
I don't know what Spork intended to say, but I can certainly say that the costs that will be socialized are not primarily monetary costs, but the overall costs of people who don't take public health measures — costs in death, isolation, and difficulty — will be borne by all of us. Private decisions, public costs.

I think that's true of the past, but no longer. [And there have been lots of private costs imposed by inept governments so far.] The situation without and with a vaccine is fundamentally different. My point about low public costs applies to the situation now, not the one a year and a quarter ago.

As I said, we see the same light. For one it's the light at the end of the tunnel; for another it's the headlamp of the oncoming train. :-)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on July 19, 2021, 02:29:46 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on July 19, 2021, 12:08:20 PM
I don't know what Spork intended to say, but I can certainly say that the costs that will be socialized are not primarily monetary costs, but the overall costs of people who don't take public health measures — costs in death, isolation, and difficulty — will be borne by all of us. Private decisions, public costs.

That's what I meant, though I tend to think in terms of dollars and cents. E.g., person decides not to get vaccinated gets hospitalized, and the cost of treatment is borne by others. Or an immune-compromised kidney transplant recipient gets infected by someone who decided not to get vaccinated. We pay for others' stupidity. At least in the short run. In the long run, as someone more famous than I once said, we are all dead.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on July 19, 2021, 03:22:45 PM
Somebody said: "For a healthy non-elderly adult, the mortality rate for Covid if infected is somewhere around one in a thousand. So not getting vaccinated and not taking any precautions has a very low probability of killing you and a pretty low probability of causing you any serious costs."

So, low societal costs form here on in.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on July 19, 2021, 04:10:09 PM
Quote from: dismalist on July 19, 2021, 03:22:45 PM
Somebody said: "For a healthy non-elderly adult, the mortality rate for Covid if infected is somewhere around one in a thousand. So not getting vaccinated and not taking any precautions has a very low probability of killing you and a pretty low probability of causing you any serious costs."

So, low societal costs form here on in.

On the other hand, the long term side-effects of Covid are pretty unknown. We don't know what it does to your long-term risk of lung cancer, dementia, etc.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on July 19, 2021, 04:55:04 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on July 19, 2021, 04:10:09 PM
Quote from: dismalist on July 19, 2021, 03:22:45 PM
Somebody said: "For a healthy non-elderly adult, the mortality rate for Covid if infected is somewhere around one in a thousand. So not getting vaccinated and not taking any precautions has a very low probability of killing you and a pretty low probability of causing you any serious costs."

So, low societal costs form here on in.

On the other hand, the long term side-effects of Covid are pretty unknown. We don't know what it does to your long-term risk of lung cancer, dementia, etc.

People tend to overestimate the probability of small risks if they have no information about them. That's normal.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on July 24, 2021, 06:59:06 PM
Mayor Muriel Bowser announced the public health emergency will end for the District tomorrow:
https://wtop.com/dc/2021/07/dcs-public-health-emergency-status-to-end-sunday/ (https://wtop.com/dc/2021/07/dcs-public-health-emergency-status-to-end-sunday/)
Posted on WTOP online (7/24/21)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Wulfenia on July 26, 2021, 01:53:55 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on July 19, 2021, 11:12:10 AM


QuoteRegarding China's two main vaccines, Sinvac and Sinopharm, their efficacy is noticeably lower than that for other vaccines. And, per an acquaintance who works for an international public health agency, China provides a country with one or two million free vaccine doses, then charges prices for additional doses that are higher than the market prices for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. The problem these countries face is not being able to access supplies of the latter, while China is quite happy to export what its pharmaceutical factories are producing.

Yes, the Chinese vaccines are of low efficacy. But even those vaccines are more than, say, Canada, France, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, etc managed to develop. Yes, many of them (and others) have a problem with access to Moderna and Pfizer, but part of the problem is their own failure to develop vaccines, and they are all wealthier and less isolated than Cuba. Switzerland is a particularly notable failure, as it was badly affected by Covid, boasts a well-regarded R&D sector and has a huge pharmaceutical sector.
Also Israel (probably the only democracy to have become stronger due to the pandemic), despite not developing vaccines, managed to set up a world-beating vaccination program, which other wealthy, small countries like Norway, Sweden or Qatar failed to do.

This is not a fair assessment. In China, it was an absolute priority to have a national vaccine. In France, it made no sense to continue a phase-3-trial of a vaccine that was clearly much inferior to the German vaccine because ressources are better used for producing the German vaccine in licence.

I agree that Cuba is very successful. They have a very long history of prioritizing health care.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 27, 2021, 07:22:12 AM
Quote from: Wulfenia on July 26, 2021, 01:53:55 PM


Yes, the Chinese vaccines are of low efficacy.

It appears that Sinopharm, while not nearly as good at preventing infection, is still quite good at preventing severe disease and death. Part of the problem with all the discussion about which vaccines are better is that it ends up obscuring that all the vaccines are very good at preventing the worst outcomes and that seems to hold true with all the variants.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: quasihumanist on July 27, 2021, 10:17:11 AM
Quote from: dismalist on July 19, 2021, 03:22:45 PM
Somebody said: "For a healthy non-elderly adult, the mortality rate for Covid if infected is somewhere around one in a thousand. So not getting vaccinated and not taking any precautions has a very low probability of killing you and a pretty low probability of causing you any serious costs."

So, low societal costs form here on in.

For losing your job, one in a thousand is a small risk.

For dying, one in a thousand is not a small risk.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on July 27, 2021, 10:20:37 AM
Quote from: quasihumanist on July 27, 2021, 10:17:11 AM
Quote from: dismalist on July 19, 2021, 03:22:45 PM
Somebody said: "For a healthy non-elderly adult, the mortality rate for Covid if infected is somewhere around one in a thousand. So not getting vaccinated and not taking any precautions has a very low probability of killing you and a pretty low probability of causing you any serious costs."

So, low societal costs form here on in.

For losing your job, one in a thousand is a small risk.

For dying, one in a thousand is not a small risk.

I feel that way, too, but other people feel differently.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 27, 2021, 10:42:06 AM
Quote from: dismalist on July 27, 2021, 10:20:37 AM
Quote from: quasihumanist on July 27, 2021, 10:17:11 AM
Quote from: dismalist on July 19, 2021, 03:22:45 PM
Somebody said: "For a healthy non-elderly adult, the mortality rate for Covid if infected is somewhere around one in a thousand. So not getting vaccinated and not taking any precautions has a very low probability of killing you and a pretty low probability of causing you any serious costs."

So, low societal costs form here on in.

For losing your job, one in a thousand is a small risk.

For dying, one in a thousand is not a small risk.

I feel that way, too, but other people feel differently.

Two points.
1. It is important to remember that not getting vaccinated imposes lots of costs on everyone else. You are far more likely to spread COVID if you aren't vaccinated. The people most at risk are other unvaccinated people, but vaccinated people with conditions which may suppress their immune system also can be vulnerable.

2. Long Covid is definitely real, but I think some of the studies and reporting on it are misleading and alarmist. Still, even putting that aside, for a lot of people, getting COVID is a pretty unpleasant experience, especially if they aren't vaccinated. The chances of having to be hospitalized for a younger person are a lot higher than the chances of dying. Even if there are no long term consequences, that's not really something I want to experience if I can help it. Even for mild cases, people are often quite sick.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on July 27, 2021, 11:54:05 AM
Quote from: Wulfenia on July 26, 2021, 01:53:55 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on July 19, 2021, 11:12:10 AM
Yes, the Chinese vaccines are of low efficacy. But even those vaccines are more than, say, Canada, France, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, etc managed to develop. Yes, many of them (and others) have a problem with access to Moderna and Pfizer, but part of the problem is their own failure to develop vaccines, and they are all wealthier and less isolated than Cuba. Switzerland is a particularly notable failure, as it was badly affected by Covid, boasts a well-regarded R&D sector and has a huge pharmaceutical sector.
Also Israel (probably the only democracy to have become stronger due to the pandemic), despite not developing vaccines, managed to set up a world-beating vaccination program, which other wealthy, small countries like Norway, Sweden or Qatar failed to do.

This is not a fair assessment. In China, it was an absolute priority to have a national vaccine. In France, it made no sense to continue a phase-3-trial of a vaccine that was clearly much inferior to the German vaccine because ressources are better used for producing the German vaccine in licence.

I agree that Cuba is very successful. They have a very long history of prioritizing health care.

The problem with the French approach (and indeed, that of the EU minus Germany) is that it was a failure - vaccination got off to a notoriously slow start, vastly behind the UK or even Germany, which was far slower than the UK. Perhaps with better procurement and logistics, and less bureaucracy, it could've had a highly successful program, without its own vaccines. But even a mediocre vaccine might've helped if it had been rolled out early and quickly, even if boosters of another vaccine had to be given eventually. It didn't help how vaccination quickly got politicized, with Macron blatantly doing a misinformation campaign against Astra Zeneca, and the EU not approving Sputnik V in a blatantly political approach, given they've approved others with lower effectiveness. Sure, the EU minus approach to vaccination was more successful than the Australian approach, but at least Australia had succeeded in containing Covid. The EU minus is pretty unique among developed places (and behind a number of middle income and developing countries) in having botched Covid containment, and Covid immunization, and vaccine development.
Cuba and China both faced obvious geopolitical problems in procuring vaccines, so national pride, etc aside it made sense to develop their own vaccines. In China's case, there was sheer population size to consider. The Cubans made no attempt to obtain vaccines from abroad, out of arrogance and/or because they assumed (no doubt accurately in the case of Western vaccines) they wouldn't get them anyway, but the claimed effectiveness of their Abdala vaccine is (again, if confirmed) comparable to Pfizer, Moderna and Sputnik. France faced no such concerns but, again, the problem is not so much their choice of approach but the fact it was a failure (unlike Israel and the UAE, which also didn't develop their own vaccines). Coupled with the lack of "solidarity" from Brussels towards Italy and Spain when they were the pandemic's epicenters, it doesn't exactly bode well for the EU.


Quote from: Caracal on July 27, 2021, 10:42:06 AM
Quote from: dismalist on July 27, 2021, 10:20:37 AM
Quote from: quasihumanist on July 27, 2021, 10:17:11 AM
Quote from: dismalist on July 19, 2021, 03:22:45 PM
Somebody said: "For a healthy non-elderly adult, the mortality rate for Covid if infected is somewhere around one in a thousand. So not getting vaccinated and not taking any precautions has a very low probability of killing you and a pretty low probability of causing you any serious costs."

So, low societal costs form here on in.

For losing your job, one in a thousand is a small risk.

For dying, one in a thousand is not a small risk.

I feel that way, too, but other people feel differently.

Two points.
1. It is important to remember that not getting vaccinated imposes lots of costs on everyone else. You are far more likely to spread COVID if you aren't vaccinated. The people most at risk are other unvaccinated people, but vaccinated people with conditions which may suppress their immune system also can be vulnerable.

2. Long Covid is definitely real, but I think some of the studies and reporting on it are misleading and alarmist. Still, even putting that aside, for a lot of people, getting COVID is a pretty unpleasant experience, especially if they aren't vaccinated. The chances of having to be hospitalized for a younger person are a lot higher than the chances of dying. Even if there are no long term consequences, that's not really something I want to experience if I can help it. Even for mild cases, people are often quite sick.

In addition, in the US, the risk of financial ruin due to Covid medical expenses is much more than 1 in 1000. The risk of lung scarring (with what effect on your long-term risk of pneumonia, lung cancer, etc?) is much more than 1 in 1000. The risk of neurological side effects of uncertain duration and of uncertain long-term consequences (dementia risk?) such as losing your sense of smell, is also higher.
Personally, I don't and never much worried about dying of Covid - I'm young enough, and have no major, known risk factor other than being male. I did worry about my parents (incl. the risk of them catching it from me), and I did worry about things like being too sick to work or look after my child, medical expenses, long term health consequences, etc.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on July 27, 2021, 12:04:12 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on July 27, 2021, 11:54:05 AM
The risk of neurological side effects of uncertain duration and of uncertain long-term consequences (dementia risk?) such as losing your sense of smell, is also higher.



The studies that got lots of attention on this weren't very good. The big problem with lots of long covid studies is that they don't have a control group, so you can end up with a lot of cofounding issues and response bias problems. I've seen several studies that claim "neurological and psychological problems were higher among people who got covid but lump together everything and fail to consider that it would make sense that getting covid in a pandemic might result in increased anxiety for all the normal reasons.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on July 27, 2021, 12:07:28 PM
And not
Quotegetting covid in a pandemic might also result in increased anxiety for all the normal reasons
, too. :-)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 03, 2021, 04:00:40 PM
Our positivity rate has jumped to over 16% and we had almost 6,500 'confirmed' cases today. Looks like we're headed into another peak. :(
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on August 03, 2021, 04:15:16 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 03, 2021, 04:00:40 PM
Our positivity rate has jumped to over 16% and we had almost 6,500 'confirmed' cases today. Looks like we're headed into another peak. :(

Before panic breaks out, is that 16% of those tested? Who gets themselves tested? To cut through it all, are the 6500 confirmed cases a flow of new cases, or stock? And, what is the size of the population being referred to? And what is the death rate for Covid in the relevant population?

On an up-beat note, it seems the gamblers who eschewed  having themselves vaccinated are reassessing their decisions on account of worse odds, and are getting vaccinated at a higher rate. All as to be expected.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 03, 2021, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: dismalist on August 03, 2021, 04:15:16 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 03, 2021, 04:00:40 PM
Our positivity rate has jumped to over 16% and we had almost 6,500 'confirmed' cases today. Looks like we're headed into another peak. :(

Before panic breaks out, is that 16% of those tested? Who gets themselves tested? To cut through it all, are the 6500 confirmed cases a flow of new cases, or stock? And, what is the size of the population being referred to? And what is the death rate for Covid in the relevant population?

On an up-beat note, it seems the gamblers who eschewed  having themselves vaccinated are reassessing their decisions on account of worse odds, and are getting vaccinated at a higher rate. All as to be expected.

It's always a percentage of those who are tested. I know that not everyone will get tested, so the numbers could be under reported. We were doing so well, then, well, shit happened.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on August 04, 2021, 06:25:09 AM
Our state lost 40 people to COVID yesterday.  It didn't have to happen.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on August 04, 2021, 07:43:36 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 03, 2021, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: dismalist on August 03, 2021, 04:15:16 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 03, 2021, 04:00:40 PM
Our positivity rate has jumped to over 16% and we had almost 6,500 'confirmed' cases today. Looks like we're headed into another peak. :(

Before panic breaks out, is that 16% of those tested? Who gets themselves tested? To cut through it all, are the 6500 confirmed cases a flow of new cases, or stock? And, what is the size of the population being referred to? And what is the death rate for Covid in the relevant population?

On an up-beat note, it seems the gamblers who eschewed  having themselves vaccinated are reassessing their decisions on account of worse odds, and are getting vaccinated at a higher rate. All as to be expected.

It's always a percentage of those who are tested. I know that not everyone will get tested, so the numbers could be under reported. We were doing so well, then, well, shit happened.

Our local hospital's positivity rate jumped from 16.8% to 48.8%!!! Granted, it's just the hospitalized population, but still that seems excessive.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on August 04, 2021, 08:10:27 AM
That's serious because that probably means nearly half of all admissions are Covid-related, taken from the total drawing population. It also suggests there are more infections being looked after at home, with unwilling or unknowing individuals and their family members not self-identifying.

There may be some iatrogenic contractions, but probably not enough for that much of a jump.

And for those that are serious, that means ICU/CCU beds, equipment, and personnel are under high-stress levels, to say nothing of blood supplies, PPE, and anti-febrile meds, just for starters.

Yikes.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on August 04, 2021, 09:45:23 AM
Again, before panic sets in, it is well to note that the Delta variant surge in the UK is abating rapidly. Here is a very thoughtful article on possible causes and lessons

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/08/the-u-k-s-delta-surge-is-collapsing-will-ours.html (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/08/the-u-k-s-delta-surge-is-collapsing-will-ours.html)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on August 04, 2021, 04:11:58 PM
My area has the largest number in the hospital with Covid that i have seen.  We have breached 210 in the hospital with over 50 in the ICU. 

This county and the surrounding ones have asked the guv to declare an emergency. We still have some beds, but no qualified people to man them!  the big cities around are also pretty well full up!

I went to the grocery store today and I noticed more, but still too few masks!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on August 05, 2021, 07:06:03 AM
Vaccination rates are now surging in our state, so the COVID surge is getting people's attention.  Unfortunately it's going to be a while before we get past this current surge of cases.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on August 05, 2021, 08:10:38 AM
Quote from: dismalist on August 04, 2021, 09:45:23 AM
Again, before panic sets in, it is well to note that the Delta variant surge in the UK is abating rapidly. Here is a very thoughtful article on possible causes and lessons

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/08/the-u-k-s-delta-surge-is-collapsing-will-ours.html (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/08/the-u-k-s-delta-surge-is-collapsing-will-ours.html)

"at one point in January, 26 of 28 models collected by the CDC to project the near-term future of the pandemic failed to include what proved to be the ultimate course of the disease, just two weeks later, in their range of what was considered possible."

CDC needs to be using better models.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on August 05, 2021, 10:06:59 AM
And stop interpreting what they do have with a mind to people-pleasing all the time.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on August 05, 2021, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: pgher on August 04, 2021, 07:43:36 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 03, 2021, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: dismalist on August 03, 2021, 04:15:16 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 03, 2021, 04:00:40 PM
Our positivity rate has jumped to over 16% and we had almost 6,500 'confirmed' cases today. Looks like we're headed into another peak. :(

Before panic breaks out, is that 16% of those tested? Who gets themselves tested? To cut through it all, are the 6500 confirmed cases a flow of new cases, or stock? And, what is the size of the population being referred to? And what is the death rate for Covid in the relevant population?

On an up-beat note, it seems the gamblers who eschewed  having themselves vaccinated are reassessing their decisions on account of worse odds, and are getting vaccinated at a higher rate. All as to be expected.

It's always a percentage of those who are tested. I know that not everyone will get tested, so the numbers could be under reported. We were doing so well, then, well, shit happened.

Our local hospital's positivity rate jumped from 16.8% to 48.8%!!! Granted, it's just the hospitalized population, but still that seems excessive.

Their positivity rate increased again this week (though not much), plus drug stores are out of testing supplies. Dear Lord.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: fishbrains on August 05, 2021, 02:08:09 PM
Teaching dual enrollment in the local high school. I'd guess about 3-5% of students, teachers, and staff are wearing masks. Our vaccination rate is in the 50% range for the county.

This odd little experiment continues, I guess.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ab_grp on August 10, 2021, 04:19:54 PM
Daughter's first day back at high school, and already an email from the school to notify us of a positive COVID case.  Off to a great start! Our county's been back in the high risk zone for a week, so I guess it's no real surprise.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on August 10, 2021, 07:31:27 PM
Transmission levels are high in all five boroughs, Westchester county, and both counties in Long Island. People are not only walking around as though the pandemic is over but also having long conversations on their phones in the subway, unmasked, naturally.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on August 11, 2021, 06:29:11 PM
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/race-for-a-vaccine/stanford-will-require-weekly-covid-19-testing-regardless-of-vaccination-status/2629826/

This has me wondering whether my schools will do the same, and if so, if I report a positive test, what documentation would I need to supply?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on August 11, 2021, 07:38:33 PM
UT-San Antonio announces first three weeks of most courses will be online.

Mandatory testing for students, faculty, staff.

https://www.utsa.edu/today/2021/08/story/modified-fall-semester-operations.html
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on August 11, 2021, 07:42:41 PM
Our campus has a mask mandate. Well, sort of. I was in two meetings yesterday where I was masked, and in the minority. Both times, I was most definitely not in charge of the meeting. What's the protocol? If the senior professor isn't wearing one, how can I ask students to wear one? I hate this.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 11, 2021, 08:19:42 PM
We still have nothing... only 'suggestions' and 'encouragement' for faculty, staff and students to mask up and get vaccinated.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on August 12, 2021, 10:07:16 AM
I got an email this week that someone in my building tested positive.  It's supposed to be anonymous, but when they tell you the room number it's pretty darn easy to narrow down the list of possibles.  Also, given the shared information, the person was going to campus WHILE having symptoms & waiting for their test results. 
It's going to be a sh!tshow when the students return.  And there is no plan for when or who can decide it's not safe to be in person.  Can I decide that my lab classes will be online?  Can my chair?  What about the graduate TAs who are actually in the lab classrooms?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morden on August 12, 2021, 10:17:51 AM
Most of us must teach face to face in fall: no mask mandate, no vaccine mandate, no windows that open, and no space for social distancing in classrooms. I expect that we will spend most of the term dealing with outbreaks, and so have reworked the course to get rid of all in-class assessments. I know it will hurt attendance and increase the possibility of cheating, but don't know what else I can do given the circumstances. I don't want anyone dragging themselves in when they (or their kids, spouse, siblings, or parents) feel sick.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on August 12, 2021, 10:32:33 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on August 12, 2021, 10:07:16 AM
Also, given the shared information, the person was going to campus WHILE having symptoms & waiting for their test results. 

Sad.  Talk about being dumb and selfish.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on August 12, 2021, 10:35:11 AM
This is bleeding into the topic of another thread (https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=1366.240), but I think anyone who is vaccinated, lacks significant co-morbidities, and doesn't have family members at high risk should look at the upcoming semester as an opportunity to work from home for a week or two, maybe longer. Either large numbers of students will be in quarantine (assuming one works at a university that is testing students for SARS-CoV-2), or you'll get sick/test positive and will be the one who needs to quarantine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: lightning on August 12, 2021, 10:46:46 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on August 12, 2021, 10:07:16 AM
I got an email this week that someone in my building tested positive.  It's supposed to be anonymous, but when they tell you the room number it's pretty darn easy to narrow down the list of possibles.  Also, given the shared information, the person was going to campus WHILE having symptoms & waiting for their test results. 
It's going to be a sh!tshow when the students return.  And there is no plan for when or who can decide it's not safe to be in person.  Can I decide that my lab classes will be online?  Can my chair?  What about the graduate TAs who are actually in the lab classrooms?

They give the room number? That's awful.

The biggest problem at my place is that everyone was preparing for a back-to-normal fall semester, and nobody is prepared for another COVID-19 semester. Administrators are like deer in headlights right now. They are not making decisions about anything. The only decision they have made is that it's not faculty's decision on how to proceed nor is it the faculty's decision on how to pivot their courses regarding delivery formats. I've learned in the past 16 months that our COVID-19 health security officers are overpaid and useless. I'm no longer playing nice with them.

At least our health security officers do not violate privacy.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 12, 2021, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: Morden on August 12, 2021, 10:17:51 AM
Most of us must teach face to face in fall: no mask mandate, no vaccine mandate, no windows that open, and no space for social distancing in classrooms. I expect that we will spend most of the term dealing with outbreaks, and so have reworked the course to get rid of all in-class assessments. I know it will hurt attendance and increase the possibility of cheating, but don't know what else I can do given the circumstances. I don't want anyone dragging themselves in when they (or their kids, spouse, siblings, or parents) feel sick.

I was discouraged from having online assessments.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on August 12, 2021, 03:08:54 PM
I just saw the associate dean. she noted that ALL of the stuff that WAS in the rooms for social distancing (the shields) are now gone. 
I wonder if they stored them.... just in case???

My own Fall is normal, but normal for me is 2 online classes and one face to face.  My spring is looking to be a similar timing schedule (though different courses as my college is attempting to capture the community college people from across the state to increase enrollment!).
So I will not have too much of a chance, compared to others to catch Covid.  Still, compared to others, I have more health risks!

I was interested to see that Univ, TX San Antonio is delaying the face to face start for 3 weeks (going online).  With the TX gov. on the news as an extreme case, I am surprised that they had the guts to make that decision (but I may be confusing the FL wingnut and the TX wingnut).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on August 12, 2021, 06:08:39 PM
Living in Texas is getting interesting, but not in a good way.

Local governments are defying the governor's order prohibiting mask requirements.  https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/11/texas-mask-mandates-covid-19/ (https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/11/texas-mask-mandates-covid-19/)

The state has started issuing warnings to restaurants about revoking licenses if they continue requiring customers to prevent proof of vaccination.  https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/12/texas-restaurants-vaccination-proof/ (https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/12/texas-restaurants-vaccination-proof/)

Beginning to wonder if I can tolerate this state until I'm eligible to retire in 4 years and 8 months.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on August 13, 2021, 05:57:30 AM
Quote from: clean on August 12, 2021, 03:08:54 PM
I just saw the associate dean. she noted that ALL of the stuff that WAS in the rooms for social distancing (the shields) are now gone. 
I wonder if they stored them.... just in case???



By all accounts the shields are totally ineffective and might actually make things worse by trapping air. Hepa filters would be a much better idea. It would be fine if we ditched the things that weren't effective (enhanced cleaning is another example) but what you would want is a switch to things that both work and are useful in the long run.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Ruralguy on August 13, 2021, 06:20:20 AM
Unfortunately my school read "don't obsessively clean" as  "don't clean."   Surfaces and such still need to be regularly (daily) cleaned.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on August 13, 2021, 06:51:02 AM
The CDC and states that in the past took preventive measures against the virus now seem to have left it up to the individuals to take the necessary precautions. NYC
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2021/vaccinated-counties-delta-hotspots/?itid=hp_pandemic

NYC has yet to address the rising number of cases despite all the noises coming out of City Hall on totally unrelated matters.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/nyc-transmission-rates-skyrocket-as-delta-hits-90-of-covid-cases/3219682/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on August 13, 2021, 12:16:44 PM
Quote from: Langue_doc on August 13, 2021, 06:51:02 AM
The CDC and states that in the past took preventive measures against the virus now seem to have left it up to the individuals to take the necessary precautions. NYC
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2021/vaccinated-counties-delta-hotspots/?itid=hp_pandemic

NYC has yet to address the rising number of cases despite all the noises coming out of City Hall on totally unrelated matters.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/nyc-transmission-rates-skyrocket-as-delta-hits-90-of-covid-cases/3219682/

An interesting article on Cuomo and the NYC mayor's office in a recent New Yorker adds to the flavorful mix....(will find citation after I teach).

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on August 13, 2021, 07:11:21 PM
Leaders in MD's House of Delegates are asking Gov. Hogan to extend the public health emergency:
https://wtop.com/maryland/2021/08/md-house-leaders-urge-hogan-to-extend-public-health-emergency/ (https://wtop.com/maryland/2021/08/md-house-leaders-urge-hogan-to-extend-public-health-emergency/)
Posted on WTOP Radio (8/13/21)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on August 13, 2021, 11:57:57 PM
Quote from: mamselle on August 13, 2021, 12:16:44 PM
Quote from: Langue_doc on August 13, 2021, 06:51:02 AM
The CDC and states that in the past took preventive measures against the virus now seem to have left it up to the individuals to take the necessary precautions. NYC
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2021/vaccinated-counties-delta-hotspots/?itid=hp_pandemic

NYC has yet to address the rising number of cases despite all the noises coming out of City Hall on totally unrelated matters.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/nyc-transmission-rates-skyrocket-as-delta-hits-90-of-covid-cases/3219682/

An interesting article on Cuomo and the NYC mayor's office in a recent New Yorker adds to the flavorful mix....(will find citation after I teach).

M.

None of these were the ones I was referring to, but they're instructive:

   https://www.newyorker.com/tag/andrew-cuomo

This was the slightly more anodyne piece from a while ago, before the simmering pot came to a boil:

   https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/19/andrew-cuomo-the-king-of-new-york

Sic transit...

M.
   
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on August 15, 2021, 01:28:31 PM
We are now up to a million cases. Still no guidelines from the city and no enforcement of the mandatory mask policy on public transportation.

https://gothamist.com/news/nyc-passes-1-million-covid-cases
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on August 15, 2021, 02:58:28 PM
I'm sorry to hear that.

The other day on the bus, the driver gave three teen-aged girls masks from his own stash so they could ride and not walk; this system (smaller than yours, probably) is enforcing the masking rules fairly stringently.

I thanked him when I got off, both for taking the masking rules seriously and for helping the kids out.

He could legitimately have just made them get off.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on August 16, 2021, 03:55:33 PM
Nurses at the local hospital are protesting against the "get vaccinated if you work with patients" mandate.  Seriously!?!
1. You were in the FIRST group offered the vaccine. 
2. If you don't believe that vaccines save lives, then you are in the wrong line of work.
3. You have seen people die of COVID.  You know it's not painless or peaceful.
4. If I go to the hospital I am trusting that you are providing quality care and that you aren't a virus factory.

You are not "heroes" for doing your d@mn job.  Especially if you are insisting on risking the lives of OTHER PEOPLE in the name of your so-called "health freedom".
You are free to get a different job.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 16, 2021, 04:05:10 PM
We had over 14,000 cases today, which I think is the highest we've ever had since this all started. Yay. We're winning!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on August 16, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
Who is "We"?

My county had over 550 new cases today. We  now have over 350 in the hospital and 100 of those are in the ICU. 

I dont remember our hospital numbers being that high! 
For perspective, six weeks ago, there were less than 25 in the hospital and less than 9 of those in the ICU. 

Now I am watching one named storm in going inland today and TS Grace may be in the gulf next weekend (though it is looking to move to Mexico now).  Imagine having to evacuate with COVID as it is?  Large cities in my state are noting that the hospitals are full!  (Do not get sick!!)

Returning to Covid... IF someone DID get sick... heart attack, stroke, pulmonary embolism or other near fatal condition... should those people have priority over the ICU beds than those that CHOSE NOT to vaccinate?


My employer is requiring that all faculty, staff and students get tested in the first 3 weeks of class.  My questions included "What then?  IF they DONT get tested, THEN WHAT?"  (Last year, there was some online something that they had to complete, but when they didnt, the university removed them from all classes!!  A huge pain in the ass to have them removed from Blackboard, unable to email them, unable to grade their work....  Not thought through!

Another faculty member today asks, "What is the point?  IF they find that you are not positive on day one, what prevents you from being positive on day 3?"

Faculty are told that IF positive, then, if they are well enough, that they can lecture from home, otherwise, another faculty member is supposed to teach their classes!!  My immediate response is that IF I AM positive, then By Default!  I am too sick to teach on campus OR at home!  I have at least 6 months of sick pay I will never see!  here is my chance!!

Im sure I wont test as positive, at least this first time through.  Perhaps after I am forced to be on campus more as the term starts, but not after being isolated so well for so long. 

Anyway, I wish everyone the best of luck and I hope that you stay safe and healthy!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on August 16, 2021, 05:41:36 PM
Quote from: clean on August 16, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
Returning to Covid... IF someone DID get sick... heart attack, stroke, pulmonary embolism or other near fatal condition... should those people have priority over the ICU beds than those that CHOSE NOT to vaccinate?

This is one of the best arguments in favor of vaccination. Remember when we were trying to "flatten the curve"? The whole point is to reduce the load on the hospitals so that they have capacity to deal with something else.

A colleague's sibling passed away Saturday from COVID. Really brought it home. I was struggling to find empathy and my kid helped. They described the unvaccinated as double victims: victims of COVID and victims of misinformation (or disinformation). There are people and groups out there who are actively feeding an anti-vax hysteria for reasons of their own--maybe political power, maybe TV ratings or Internet clicks. People like my colleague's sibling pay the price.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 16, 2021, 06:05:14 PM
Quote from: clean on August 16, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
Who is "We"?

My county had over 550 new cases today. We  now have over 350 in the hospital and 100 of those are in the ICU. 


I was being sarcastic. There are so many misinformed people here (and in my family) who do not trust vaccines and so remain unvaccinated. We had around 200 cases today.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on August 16, 2021, 06:23:49 PM
QuoteWe had over 14,000 cases today, which I think is the highest we've ever had since this all started. Yay. We're winning!

QuoteI was being sarcastic. There are so many misinformed people here (and in my family) who do not trust vaccines and so remain unvaccinated. We had around 200 cases today.

I understand.... It is hard to say out loud...   BUT sometimes I want to 'change sides'  and root for the virus!  IF you are TEAM VIRUS, then at the moment, You ARE WINNING!!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: quasihumanist on August 16, 2021, 07:56:41 PM
Quote from: clean on August 16, 2021, 06:23:49 PM
QuoteWe had over 14,000 cases today, which I think is the highest we've ever had since this all started. Yay. We're winning!

QuoteI was being sarcastic. There are so many misinformed people here (and in my family) who do not trust vaccines and so remain unvaccinated. We had around 200 cases today.

I understand.... It is hard to say out loud...   BUT sometimes I want to 'change sides'  and root for the virus!  IF you are TEAM VIRUS, then at the moment, You ARE WINNING!!

There really are some folks around who think that Covid is God's punishment on the wicked, and we should spread the virus as much as possible so that God can then use it to save the elect and kill the reprobate.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: niwon88 on August 16, 2021, 09:54:54 PM
Quote from: quasihumanist on August 16, 2021, 07:56:41 PM
There really are some folks around who think that Covid is God's punishment on the wicked, and we should spread the virus as much as possible so that God can then use it to save the elect and kill the reprobate.

LOL I have some ultra religious family members who believe that COVID-19 is a divine punishment that we deserve and are refusing to vaccinate too. We underestimate the influence of religion too.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on August 16, 2021, 10:17:36 PM
I've been impressed with the number of towns in my area that had specifically reached out to churches, synagogues, and mosques to recruit them as vaccination sites for just the purpose of allaying those arguments.

It seems to have been quite effective, there are usually 5 or 6 sites listed on each of the town emails I follow (three in my area) and I've heard of others.

Obviously there are 'flavors' of belief within denominational structures that may or may not join in on this effort (as I know from working with them directly in many different settings), but several interfaith groups in the area are likewise supporting it (one might have even suggested it).

Religious leaders who do support sane public policy are good to have around.

M.

 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 17, 2021, 06:57:16 AM
Talked to one of my students yesterday who hasn't been vaccinated yet because 'people get vaccinated and then still get sick.' Um, a very small percentage of people have 'breakthrough' infections. Just like the flu shot (and other vaccines), there is no 100% guarantee. Shaking my damn head.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on August 17, 2021, 07:09:20 AM
Quote from: mamselle on August 16, 2021, 10:17:36 PM
Religious leaders who do support sane public policy are good to have around.

M.



And from what I've seen, most of them do.  There aren't really all that many who have truly spread dangerous messages (As always the loudest mouths get a disproportionate amount of attention).  Far more common are pastors and other leaders who are afraid to come out strongly on either side of the issue, because it is so controversial.  Many people have let the controversy and the noise silence them.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on August 17, 2021, 07:23:47 AM
Our local schools have now become a microcosm of the needless drama and controversy surrounding the pandemic.  Months ago, when the pandemic seemed to be receding, our state legislature banned mask mandates by any sort of government agency.  No doubt at the time they figured it would be a harmless piece of political theater.  Then the pandemic came roaring back, and schools found themselves unable to mandate masks.  The Governor called a special session to plead with the legislators to reconsider.  They refused  (I know a couple of these guys personally.  I'm very disappointed in them now.  One of them's father runs our local hospital.  I suspect he's upset with his son's decision too).  Then the state's judiciary ruled that the legislation was unconstitutional, because it preempted local authorities.

Our school district--and many others--seized on this opportunity to mandate masks.  Now many parents are angry.  The district administration is in an impossible position.  Some parents demand mask mandates because they fear that their children will die without one (A greatly exaggerated fear, but there is a non-trivial chance that their children will get sick).  Others demand that there be no mask mandates, because they fear that their children will suffocate if forced to mask (A nonsensical fear from a logical and empirical perspective, but if, like many, you have even a little touch of claustrophobia the fear must make a lot of intuitive sense). 

People are going to view this through a political lens, but what we're really dealing with in this case are parents who are afraid for their children.  In my experience, there is simply no reasoning with a parent once she has become convinced that something or other is a danger to her child.  She's going to believe what she believes, and she's convinced that she can't give in for the sake of her child.  This sort of thinking has always led to disagreements in how schools are run, but we seldom see such a stark divide as we do now.  There just isn't any room for compromise between those are determined to see a mask mandate, and those who are determined not to.  I think the district is making the right decision in trying to make the students mask, but I'm afraid they may face a major revolt for trying to.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on August 17, 2021, 09:15:59 AM
Or more home schooling ,if that's an option where you are.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on August 17, 2021, 09:32:08 AM
Personally, for the youngins, I think that is the answer!

Give them a choice:

Masks at school, or no masks and HOME School!

It is not just the kids that are at risk.  There are ALL of the adults from the frontline class room teacher, to the Lunch Lady (perhaps Adam Sandler needs to add a new set of lyrics), to the janitor.  Even the crossing guards are not completely safe from what I can tell, if the youngins bunch up around them! 

What about the bus drivers?  Are they safe? 

Then there are the people that the children see at home?  Are those people safe...


but I rant.  Nothing is new here, except providing the choice Mask Or Home School!  (the 'none of the above' answer can be saved for the ballot box!)  (And that assumes that the school board people WANT to be reelected!!)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on August 17, 2021, 09:51:05 AM
For the essential services (schools as earlier on the thread, but also places like grocery stores and churches) I wish locations would self-designate different safety preferences. In my town, we have 4 grocery stores. Why can one of them not be the "mask store," or at least offer "enforced mask hours"? In a town with multiple public schools, why not designate each as a "mask school" or a "free-breathing school"? (Teachers who don't want to teach in the free-breathing school can have HAZMAT suits and crisis pay, like nurses.)

I can't imagine being a bus driver in COVID. No way would they be able to make sure every child stayed masked.

AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on August 17, 2021, 10:28:32 AM
Quote from: AvidReader on August 17, 2021, 09:51:05 AM
I can't imagine being a bus driver in COVID. No way would they be able to make sure every child stayed masked.

AR.

I guess you could keep all the windows on the bus open and have a cleansing, howling breeze go through whenever the bus was on the move.

I recall from my own two years of riding the bus that having all the windows open did wonders for the atmosphere inside after somebody had thrown up.  One kid called it "playing freeze-out."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on August 17, 2021, 02:51:26 PM
Quote from: quasihumanist on August 16, 2021, 07:56:41 PM
Quote from: clean on August 16, 2021, 06:23:49 PM
QuoteWe had over 14,000 cases today, which I think is the highest we've ever had since this all started. Yay. We're winning!

QuoteI was being sarcastic. There are so many misinformed people here (and in my family) who do not trust vaccines and so remain unvaccinated. We had around 200 cases today.

I understand.... It is hard to say out loud...   BUT sometimes I want to 'change sides'  and root for the virus!  IF you are TEAM VIRUS, then at the moment, You ARE WINNING!!

There really are some folks around who think that Covid is God's punishment on the wicked, and we should spread the virus as much as possible so that God can then use it to save the elect and kill the reprobate.

They said the same thing about AIDS, Hurricane Katrina and any number of similar disasters.  It's the usual noise made by the Kristians.

In other news, Greg Abbott - Gov of Texas just tested positive (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/08/17/world/covid-delta-variant-vaccine#greg-abbott-texas-covid-positive).  Here's hoping a couple of weeks with a ventilator tube down his noise hole may teach him a lesson.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on August 17, 2021, 04:20:47 PM
Quote
In other news, Greg Abbott - Gov of Texas just tested positive.  Here's hoping a couple of weeks with a ventilator tube down his noise hole may teach him a lesson.

My TX friend noted that he is vaccinated, so likely wont need to go to the hospital.

I wonder about all of those that are expressing joy in his positive status had more, less or the same response when The Great Pumpkin was sent to Walter Reed for his internal bleaching and hydroxykilloquiz meds!?

However, I suspect that Abbot's 'salvation' will be another sign of Devine intervention for the Chosen Few Trumpians that are Holding The Line!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: onthefringe on August 17, 2021, 04:58:26 PM
Quote from: clean on August 17, 2021, 04:20:47 PM
Quote
In other news, Greg Abbott - Gov of Texas just tested positive.  Here's hoping a couple of weeks with a ventilator tube down his noise hole may teach him a lesson.

My TX friend noted that he is vaccinated, so likely wont need to go to the hospital.

In fact he's reported to be asymptomatic, isolating in the governor's mansion, and receiving $$$$ worth of regeneron monoclonal antibodies. So I doubt this will change his mind about the risks of the pandemic. Sadly.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on August 18, 2021, 06:00:23 AM
Head of our regional children's hospital and her husband tested positive.  He is a teacher and got it at school:  masks optional.  Am sure he and wife were both vaxxed, but governor is anti mask and pro death.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on August 18, 2021, 06:21:05 AM
Our pastor, who was vaccinated, has nonetheless tested positive.  I was briefly in close contact with him Sunday, so while I too am vaccinated, I'm now having to keep my distance and try to schedule a test.

I know that even with breakthrough infections the vaccines are still very useful, but the growing number of reports of breakthrough infections are not going to help in trying to deal with vaccine hesitancy.  I wonder whether a lot of people who are refusing to vaccinate or take other precautions are just succumbing to fatalism.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on August 19, 2021, 11:54:14 AM
The local paper carried a story about a small anti-masking protest at the school administration office.  The Superintendent spoke directly with the protestors.  He described the interaction and the protestors as "civil."  He's not backing down.  He's a master of "a soft answer turns away wrath."

A neighboring district's school board just failed in two attempts to pass a masking mandate of its own.  They now have 40 students quarantined, infected, or otherwise sent home.  It will be interesting to see how the masked and un-masked districts end up comparing.  In effect our county is running an experiment on just how well masking in schools works in practice.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on August 21, 2021, 10:38:46 AM
School district in our region shut down yesterday, after being open just a week. Reporting varies, but about two dozen new cases in the past couple of days, in a district of around 1000 students (with a fair number of those having been pulled out for homeschooling already before the return).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on August 24, 2021, 07:54:13 AM
I was checking the New York Times hospitalization numbers today and noticed that several hospitals in my area are listed with fractions of beds available. This seems to be pretty consistent in lots of states, e.g. Tallahassee Memorial Hospital is listed as having 0.7 available ICU beds. Does anyone know why they aren't counting beds using whole numbers?

AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: jimbogumbo on August 24, 2021, 08:29:30 AM
For those of us with poor classroom ventilation and no way to crack windows: https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2021/08/17/diy-air-filters-for-classrooms-experts-are-enthusiastic-and-a-citizen-scientist-makes-it-easy
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on August 24, 2021, 09:07:49 AM
Quote from: AvidReader on August 24, 2021, 07:54:13 AM
I was checking the New York Times hospitalization numbers today and noticed that several hospitals in my area are listed with fractions of beds available. This seems to be pretty consistent in lots of states, e.g. Tallahassee Memorial Hospital is listed as having 0.7 available ICU beds. Does anyone know why they aren't counting beds using whole numbers?

AR.

It's because they don't mean physical presence of a bed.  It's not the mattress that's the limit, it's the staffing.  They don't have enough [fill in your choice of medically trained folks] to care for the patients.  So, what they are saying is that they only have 0.7 of the person-hours needed to care for the average new ICU patient.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on August 24, 2021, 02:44:41 PM
Quote from: the_geneticist on August 24, 2021, 09:07:49 AM
It's because they don't mean physical presence of a bed.  It's not the mattress that's the limit, it's the staffing.  They don't have enough [fill in your choice of medically trained folks] to care for the patients.  So, what they are saying is that they only have 0.7 of the person-hours needed to care for the average new ICU patient.

Interesting! Thank you!

AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on August 26, 2021, 10:31:56 AM
My colleague and I had our first F2F classes on Tuesday morning.  By the time she got home from work early that afternoon, she had an email from a student who had come to class knowing she was sick (sat in the middle of the room, masked) after being tested over the weekend. The student tested positive.

Well, THAT didn't take long....
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on August 26, 2021, 11:12:29 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on August 26, 2021, 10:31:56 AM
My colleague and I had our first F2F classes on Tuesday morning.  By the time she got home from work early that afternoon, she had an email from a student who had come to class knowing she was sick (sat in the middle of the room, masked) after being tested over the weekend. The student tested positive.

Well, THAT didn't take long....

Wow.  I hope the university contacts the rest of the students in that class.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on August 26, 2021, 11:15:20 AM
Our school superintendent has now pointed out that having students masked has already saved us large numbers of quarantines at our school.  Maybe they can gradually get across the utility of masking to enough parents to make compliance go down easier.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on August 31, 2021, 06:46:06 AM
Apologies if this was already mentioned. I'm tired and just don't have the oomph to search.

Has anyone had issues with getting students to wear masks in a 'no-mask-required' place? We are not allowed to require them, but I plan to bring some with me and ask them nicely to mask up. Suggestions?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on August 31, 2021, 07:00:36 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on August 26, 2021, 11:12:29 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on August 26, 2021, 10:31:56 AM
My colleague and I had our first F2F classes on Tuesday morning.  By the time she got home from work early that afternoon, she had an email from a student who had come to class knowing she was sick (sat in the middle of the room, masked) after being tested over the weekend. The student tested positive.

Well, THAT didn't take long....

Wow.  I hope the university contacts the rest of the students in that class.
The guidelines are that they don't need to if the student was masked. It makes sense. You'd end up w everyone quarantined very quickly if that counted as an exposure.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: saffie on August 31, 2021, 08:12:12 AM
A student from a F2F class here tested positive two days after class. Students are required to wear masks inside, but no distancing in the classroom. This counted as an exposure. (Vaccine is mandated, but students still have time to submit proof, so there can be a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated in the classroom.)

Protocol here is that everyone in close contact (e.g. everyone else in the classroom, including instructor) needs to get tested. If already fully vaccinated, a negative test result will allow access back to campus. If not vaccinated yet, quarantine for a week and half, with no access to campus until a negative test result at end of quarantine. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on August 31, 2021, 08:27:50 AM
Yesterday I tried.  In my Intermediate finance class (so you would think these students appreciated numbers) I posted the Covid numbers over time (noting that in this date in May, we had like 25 new cases, 22 in the hospital and 8 in the ICU - total deaths were about 814).  I reported the changes each month until last week - the first week of class .  Last Friday there were over 450 new cases, 425 in the hospital with 111 in the ICU. Deaths were now over 1000.  I reported the total for the 5 class days of last week - over 2200 new cases, and 50 deaths!!). I reminded them that we have made national news for flying people to other hospitals because we were filled and have the highest rate of Covid hospitalizations.  I reported that out of 29 people registered in class, in the first week I had received official notices that 5 were either positive or required to quarantine!  That is like 17% of THAT class! 

I then asked if anyone would like a mask!  I have plenty to offer! 

Any takers???? Not a damn one!  I had 9 masked people in a class of 22 students in attendance (as 5 were not allowed back on campus yet!) 

So I am not particularly please with them, and I fear that I will not have the compassion I might should.   


"Oh, you want me to WebEx the class because you are positive and can not go to campus?  .... Maybe you should have accepted a mask! 
"Why did I stop posting the class notes after every class?  Well, hell, why should I spend my time doing that?  No one volunteered to post them on the first day, and no one wants to wear a mask, so I suppose that everyone will be healthy and will attend. Why would the notes even be needed???"

(I am still posting the notes after each class, but in the past, I would have given them to a class member to scan and post in the class' discussion board).


So, I  dont have much advice except perhaps, Dont Bother.  They are not likely to risk the stares from classmates to accept a mask, much less wear it, and YOU will only be as PISSED OFF as I am thinking that they dont give a shit about their health, much less my health or the health of anyone else!!  So Why Take the Risk of KNOWING what inconsiderate, self absorbed, uncaring assholes they are?

I hope that helps!!

But if anyone finds something that works, please let me know what it was! 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on August 31, 2021, 08:32:44 AM
The only thing that would work depends on admincritters with spines. Perhaps insist that one sit in your class for the entire duration, maskless?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on September 01, 2021, 06:54:58 PM
First class of the new semester.  35 faces wearing 35 masks.  Our admin has made it clear that masks are expected and that students can expect to have an unpleasant meeting with the Dean of Students should they refuse.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 02, 2021, 12:32:12 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on September 01, 2021, 06:54:58 PM
First class of the new semester.  35 faces wearing 35 masks.  Our admin has made it clear that masks are expected and that students can expect to have an unpleasant meeting with the Dean of Students should they refuse.

Yeah, when rules are clear and there are obvious consequences, you usually don't have to spend much time enforcing them.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morden on September 08, 2021, 09:02:12 AM
From McSweeney's
Quotehttps://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/a-short-quiz-for-my-students-in-lieu-of-asking-about-their-vaccine-status-or-requesting-that-they-wear-masks
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on September 08, 2021, 05:12:03 PM
I heard Dr. Fauci say today [think it was him?] that the Delta stream of the Corona Virus is, or starts, more centered in the nostrils, or nasal, area. When the 1st burst of the Covid came I suggested keeping the throat area of the airway cleared by using a toothbrush in the far back areas of the throat to provoke mucus clearing.That may have helped in keeping the airway cleared. So, now another possibly not lamebrain idea. Would flu remedies or antihistamines help in lessening congestion in nose areas thereby bettering breathing and hopefully helping natural and medical forces in making better progress in opposing the current Covid "spike"?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on September 08, 2021, 06:49:20 PM
Quote from: Economizer on September 08, 2021, 05:12:03 PM
I heard Dr. Fauci say today [think it was him?] that the Delta stream of the Corona Virus is, or starts, more centered in the nostrils, or nasal, area. When the 1st burst of the Covid came I suggested keeping the throat area of the airway cleared by using a toothbrush in the far back areas of the throat to provoke mucus clearing.That may have helped in keeping the airway cleared. So, now another possibly not lamebrain idea. Would flu remedies or antihistamines help in lessening congestion in nose areas thereby bettering breathing and hopefully helping natural and medical forces in making better progress in opposing the current Covid "spike"?

These ideas are right up there with drinking bleach and trying to shine bright lights into your lungs - both suggestions by D. Trump MD (mentally deficient)  Depending on the antihistamine, they have a drying effect which would be more likely to have the virus sticking around rather than being expelled when blowing one's nose. Trying to brush your throat is just going to trigger the gag reflex.  Handwashing ,distancing, masks & vaccines.  This is not rocket science.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 08, 2021, 07:15:06 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on September 08, 2021, 06:49:20 PM
Quote from: Economizer on September 08, 2021, 05:12:03 PM
I heard Dr. Fauci say today [think it was him?] that the Delta stream of the Corona Virus is, or starts, more centered in the nostrils, or nasal, area. When the 1st burst of the Covid came I suggested keeping the throat area of the airway cleared by using a toothbrush in the far back areas of the throat to provoke mucus clearing.That may have helped in keeping the airway cleared. So, now another possibly not lamebrain idea. Would flu remedies or antihistamines help in lessening congestion in nose areas thereby bettering breathing and hopefully helping natural and medical forces in making better progress in opposing the current Covid "spike"?

These ideas are right up there with drinking bleach and trying to shine bright lights into your lungs - both suggestions by D. Trump MD (mentally deficient)  Depending on the antihistamine, they have a drying effect which would be more likely to have the virus sticking around rather than being expelled when blowing one's nose. Trying to brush your throat is just going to trigger the gag reflex. Handwashing ,distancing, masks & vaccines.  This is not rocket science.

Unfortunately, I know some people who believe every hare brained theory out there. I wonder what the outcome would be if people actually did those four things instead of swearing by ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on September 08, 2021, 07:29:40 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 08, 2021, 07:15:06 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on September 08, 2021, 06:49:20 PM
Quote from: Economizer on September 08, 2021, 05:12:03 PM
I heard Dr. Fauci say today [think it was him?] that the Delta stream of the Corona Virus is, or starts, more centered in the nostrils, or nasal, area. When the 1st burst of the Covid came I suggested keeping the throat area of the airway cleared by using a toothbrush in the far back areas of the throat to provoke mucus clearing.That may have helped in keeping the airway cleared. So, now another possibly not lamebrain idea. Would flu remedies or antihistamines help in lessening congestion in nose areas thereby bettering breathing and hopefully helping natural and medical forces in making better progress in opposing the current Covid "spike"?

These ideas are right up there with drinking bleach and trying to shine bright lights into your lungs - both suggestions by D. Trump MD (mentally deficient)  Depending on the antihistamine, they have a drying effect which would be more likely to have the virus sticking around rather than being expelled when blowing one's nose. Trying to brush your throat is just going to trigger the gag reflex. Handwashing ,distancing, masks & vaccines.  This is not rocket science.

Unfortunately, I know some people who believe every hare brained theory out there. I wonder what the outcome would be if people actually did those four things instead of swearing by ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

The CDC's risk aversion, especially for itself, with respect to the J & J vaccine around April 15 was the single most anti-vax promotion in the history of this epidemic.

See here: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-vaccination-doses-per-capita?time=2021-02-08..latest&country=~USA (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-vaccination-doses-per-capita?time=2021-02-08..latest&country=~USA)



Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on September 08, 2021, 08:03:25 PM
QuoteTrying to brush your throat is just going to trigger the gag reflex.  Handwashing ,distancing, masks & vaccines.  This is not rocket science.

Maybe we should try this at the start of the next class.... trigger the gag reflex, throw up, and THEN ask if anyone in class wants to wash their hands, stay away from me, and wear a mask!!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on September 08, 2021, 08:45:49 PM
Ahhh..those are here that write with skeptic pencil. Give peace and logic a chance, if only in your mind! It might spur  better supposition.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 08, 2021, 08:57:33 PM
Two of my students, who have never worn a mask in class, have now tested positive. Lovely.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Aster on September 09, 2021, 02:52:11 PM
I learned today that not only has Cuba developed it own covid vaccine, but it will be giving it to small children as young as 2 years old.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on September 09, 2021, 03:00:33 PM
Quote from: Aster on September 09, 2021, 02:52:11 PM
I learned today that not only has Cuba developed it own covid vaccine, but it will be giving it to small children as young as 2 years old.

Call the FDA for approval here.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 09, 2021, 04:46:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 09, 2021, 03:00:33 PM
Quote from: Aster on September 09, 2021, 02:52:11 PM
I learned today that not only has Cuba developed it own covid vaccine, but it will be giving it to small children as young as 2 years old.

Call the FDA for approval here.

I suspect that Cuba is just taking shortcuts on testing and safety trials. They might get away with it, but it isn't something we should want to see happen here. The vaccine will almost certainly be effective for young children. My understanding is that they aren't even running the large control trials like they did with adults. The tricky part is figuring out what a safe and effective dose is for kids of different age groups. The vaccines are great and they have a low risk of serious side effects for adults, but they do pack a punch. Kids are at a relatively low risk of getting seriously ill from Covid, so you want to make sure you find a dose that they can tolerate and that there aren't any unexpected problems before you start vaccinating millions of kids.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on September 09, 2021, 09:26:42 PM
What exactly are the issues regarding vax dosing of adults vs. children?   Does the weight of an indvidual matter much when it comes to deciding how large a vax dose to administer?   IOW, the vax doses given to adults are one-size-fits-all, regardless of whether the recipient is a supermodel, or a middle aged fat schlub such as myself?

The other thing that has concerned me is that, if it be necessary to submit a population of pre-pubescent children to a separate vaccine testing process, what are the ethics regarding choosing kids to be the test subjects in that process (which concern of course would also be the case wrt any medical testing efforts with children)?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on September 10, 2021, 03:32:10 AM
Buried somewhere in the FDA clinical trials protocols, there is an extensively-developed literature on this.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 10, 2021, 07:12:16 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 09, 2021, 09:26:42 PM


The other thing that has concerned me is that, if it be necessary to submit a population of pre-pubescent children to a separate vaccine testing process, what are the ethics regarding choosing kids to be the test subjects in that process (which concern of course would also be the case wrt any medical testing efforts with children)?

Well, my impression is that it helps that very large numbers of adults have taken the vaccine and they know that serious side effects are quite rare. I think the ethical concerns are why it takes so long though. Apparently the way they usually do this is they step down ages gradually. If you know that 12 year olds were fine, there's a pretty low risk that there will be significant problems with 10 year olds that would make it unethical to enroll them in a trial. If the ten year old trials don't reveal any significant issues, then you can move to 8 year olds pretty safely and so on.

My assumption is that the dosing works the same way. You don't just start by giving the full dose to a 2 year old. You probably try lower doses as you move down through the age groups and see if you get a good enough antibody response from them. We probably have some actual experts on this on here though, so happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: fleabite on September 10, 2021, 07:33:03 AM
Young children metabolize drugs differently than adults because of immature liver function. Therefore, the dosing may be different. For example, children may even require a higher dose per pound or kilo of body weight than adults. That is why tests have to be done specifically in children.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Economizer on September 10, 2021, 08:07:46 AM
In my earlier remarks I failed to say that I am vaccinated and that I am 100% for everyone getting vaccinated. My suggestions were meant to possibly help the vaxxed and un- vaxxed ward off sympthoms. I am no doctor and I am not in anyway a medical professional!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on September 10, 2021, 11:07:32 PM
I get the drug metabolism stuff, but vaccines are not drugs.  Their objective is to engender antibodies for the viruses they are designed to combat, much the same way that actual exposure to the virus does.  The virus does not know nor care how old the host is.  I seem to be missing something here, because the vaccine certainly does not know whether the recipient is 11 or 12... or 22 or 82.   Nor, for that matter, does it know whether the recipient is 50 lbs., 150lbs, or a subject of an episode of 'My 600lb. life'.   Similarly, when someone actually catches the virus, they catch it, merely by being exposed to enough virus to get it, but some covid+ sufferers will doubtless have been exposed to many times more virus particles, etc., than others.

I am trying to understand the issues regarding age of vax recipients, but I confess I know little.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Vkw10 on September 11, 2021, 12:24:26 AM
Quote from: fleabite on September 10, 2021, 07:33:03 AM
Young children metabolize drugs differently than adults because of immature liver function. Therefore, the dosing may be different. For example, children may even require a higher dose per pound or kilo of body weight than adults. That is why tests have to be done specifically in children.

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 10, 2021, 11:07:32 PM
I get the drug metabolism stuff, but vaccines are not drugs.

So the reason for any sort of medical trial being different for children is that immature body may react differently than adult body? The vaccine may cause different complications because of developmental stage?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on September 11, 2021, 06:40:21 AM
In vaccines, as in natural virus exposure, the dose makes the poison.  A failure to calibrate vaccine doses carefully for young children could result in more severe than necessary side effects of vaccination.  That would ruin any chances of the public accepting vaccination for children.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on September 11, 2021, 07:11:43 AM
Quote from: fleabite on September 10, 2021, 07:33:03 AM
Young children metabolize drugs differently than adults because of immature liver function. Therefore, the dosing may be different. For example, children may even require a higher dose per pound or kilo of body weight than adults. That is why tests have to be done specifically in children.

I don't see what it would have to do with the liver for vaccines-- there isn't anything to metabolize so far as I know. The immune response is mounted locally, at the injection site, and then spread to the rest of the body from there.

However, you are correct that children aren't just miniature adults-- there are also differences in immune function (as they are between women and men-- there was just a fascinating Radiolab episode on this that I would highly recommend).

From what I've read, they've done the dosing for each age range based on what dose produces the same protective antibody response seen in the adult trials.

Arguably, the should do the same thing at the upper end of the age spectrum, calibrating larger doses for older adults who tend to have weaker immune responses. This is already the case for some vaccines, like the flu shot where there is a high-dose version that is recommended for seniors and those with suppressed immune systems. For now, that is getting addressed instead by boosters.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: fleabite on September 11, 2021, 09:25:05 AM
Apologies, yes, I was thinking about drugs rather than vaccines, and therefore did not address the question accurately.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 14, 2021, 06:49:32 AM
Contact tracing emailed me last night and just said that 'they really needed to speak with me.' Ok... Of course the email was sent at 8pm and nobody answered the phone. So, I called this morning and they don't know why they emailed me.

Sounds like our College is doing a great job with this...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Cheerful on September 14, 2021, 12:47:42 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 14, 2021, 06:49:32 AM
Contact tracing emailed me last night and just said that 'they really needed to speak with me.' Ok... Of course the email was sent at 8pm and nobody answered the phone. So, I called this morning and they don't know why they emailed me.

Sounds like our College is doing a great job with this...

Sorry, e_p_w, that's awful.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on September 14, 2021, 01:53:19 PM
Quote from: Caracal on September 09, 2021, 04:46:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 09, 2021, 03:00:33 PM
Quote from: Aster on September 09, 2021, 02:52:11 PM
I learned today that not only has Cuba developed it own covid vaccine, but it will be giving it to small children as young as 2 years old.

Call the FDA for approval here.

I suspect that Cuba is just taking shortcuts on testing and safety trials. They might get away with it, but it isn't something we should want to see happen here. The vaccine will almost certainly be effective for young children. My understanding is that they aren't even running the large control trials like they did with adults. .

Likewise, we started vaccinating pregnant women without doing any specific trials.  Sometimes, decisions have to be made with what evidence is available.  There is a long history of vaccinating very young children, so this seems like a fairly safe and calculated risk.

Many people will say that since it dosn't really impact children as bad, it is not as important to vaccinate them.  However, this misses the point with vaccines.  A part of their use is personal protection (ie. get vaccinated and you are less likely to die), but the greater power is herd immunity to prevent community spread.  This is my issue with the "personal freedom" folk.  If it were as simple as take the vaccine to protect yourself, I would say you should be completely free to choose, but the real point of a vaccine program is not really about individuals at all and is a public health issue.   

I read a recent claim from our doctors that with the delta variant and its transmisability, it is mathematically impossible for us to reach herd immunity without vaccinating children under 12, even if everyone else accepted it.  So, until we start vaccinating children they are just a breeding ground for covid and we will not get it under control.

 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 14, 2021, 02:27:41 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on September 14, 2021, 12:47:42 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 14, 2021, 06:49:32 AM
Contact tracing emailed me last night and just said that 'they really needed to speak with me.' Ok... Of course the email was sent at 8pm and nobody answered the phone. So, I called this morning and they don't know why they emailed me.

Sounds like our College is doing a great job with this...

Sorry, e_p_w, that's awful.

I emailed them again, just to double-check, and got a response! Apparently, the email was sent in error. Hmm. I know a have a COVID + student in my course, another suspected +, another possible +/flaky student and one who had it the first week of class.

Note that I was communicating with a student assistant in the email. No, I don't have a whole lot of confidence about this process.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 14, 2021, 05:55:08 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2021, 01:53:19 PM
Quote from: Caracal on September 09, 2021, 04:46:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 09, 2021, 03:00:33 PM
Quote from: Aster on September 09, 2021, 02:52:11 PM
I learned today that not only has Cuba developed it own covid vaccine, but it will be giving it to small children as young as 2 years old.

Call the FDA for approval here.

I suspect that Cuba is just taking shortcuts on testing and safety trials. They might get away with it, but it isn't something we should want to see happen here. The vaccine will almost certainly be effective for young children. My understanding is that they aren't even running the large control trials like they did with adults. .

Likewise, we started vaccinating pregnant women without doing any specific trials.  Sometimes, decisions have to be made with what evidence is available.  There is a long history of vaccinating very young children, so this seems like a fairly safe and calculated risk.

Many people will say that since it dosn't really impact children as bad, it is not as important to vaccinate them.  However, this misses the point with vaccines.  A part of their use is personal protection (ie. get vaccinated and you are less likely to die), but the greater power is herd immunity to prevent community spread.  This is my issue with the "personal freedom" folk.  If it were as simple as take the vaccine to protect yourself, I would say you should be completely free to choose, but the real point of a vaccine program is not really about individuals at all and is a public health issue.   

I read a recent claim from our doctors that with the delta variant and its transmisability, it is mathematically impossible for us to reach herd immunity without vaccinating children under 12, even if everyone else accepted it.  So, until we start vaccinating children they are just a breeding ground for covid and we will not get it under control.



It isn't ok to ask a group of people at low risk of serious illness from Covid to get vaccinated before you've made sure the vaccines are safe for them so other people can be protected. That's especially true if those people can't legally or morally make the decisions about getting vaccinated themselves.

Most vaccines have been trialed on children first because they were the ones at most risk from the disease. That's true of almost all of the early vaccines. Pregnant women are a bad comparison. There really was no biological mechanism by which pregnant women or unborn children would be at any particular risk from vaccines and they were at potentially high risk from the virus.

Now, the vaccines should work fine on kids and I haven't really seen any actual experts saying they foresee any serious problems, but there are actual mechanisms by which they could cause more side effects in kids. Probably it will be fine, but you need to actually make sure before you just starting giving them to all children.

Also, I think you've missed the point about companies and institutions requiring vaccines. It can only be justified because the vaccines carry very low risks to individuals and those risks are vastly outweighed by the benefits. It would be hugely immoral if people were being fired for refusing to take on greater risk to reduce the risk to others.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on September 14, 2021, 06:02:00 PM
Quote from: Caracal on September 14, 2021, 05:55:08 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2021, 01:53:19 PM
Quote from: Caracal on September 09, 2021, 04:46:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 09, 2021, 03:00:33 PM
Quote from: Aster on September 09, 2021, 02:52:11 PM
I learned today that not only has Cuba developed it own covid vaccine, but it will be giving it to small children as young as 2 years old.

Call the FDA for approval here.

I suspect that Cuba is just taking shortcuts on testing and safety trials. They might get away with it, but it isn't something we should want to see happen here. The vaccine will almost certainly be effective for young children. My understanding is that they aren't even running the large control trials like they did with adults. .

Likewise, we started vaccinating pregnant women without doing any specific trials.  Sometimes, decisions have to be made with what evidence is available.  There is a long history of vaccinating very young children, so this seems like a fairly safe and calculated risk.

Many people will say that since it dosn't really impact children as bad, it is not as important to vaccinate them.  However, this misses the point with vaccines.  A part of their use is personal protection (ie. get vaccinated and you are less likely to die), but the greater power is herd immunity to prevent community spread.  This is my issue with the "personal freedom" folk.  If it were as simple as take the vaccine to protect yourself, I would say you should be completely free to choose, but the real point of a vaccine program is not really about individuals at all and is a public health issue.   

I read a recent claim from our doctors that with the delta variant and its transmisability, it is mathematically impossible for us to reach herd immunity without vaccinating children under 12, even if everyone else accepted it.  So, until we start vaccinating children they are just a breeding ground for covid and we will not get it under control.



It isn't ok to ask a group of people at low risk of serious illness from Covid to get vaccinated before you've made sure the vaccines are safe for them so other people can be protected. That's especially true if those people can't legally or morally make the decisions about getting vaccinated themselves.

Most vaccines have been trialed on children first because they were the ones at most risk from the disease. That's true of almost all of the early vaccines. Pregnant women are a bad comparison. There really was no biological mechanism by which pregnant women or unborn children would be at any particular risk from vaccines and they were at potentially high risk from the virus.

Now, the vaccines should work fine on kids and I haven't really seen any actual experts saying they foresee any serious problems, but there are actual mechanisms by which they could cause more side effects in kids. Probably it will be fine, but you need to actually make sure before you just starting giving them to all children.

Also, I think you've missed the point about companies and institutions requiring vaccines. It can only be justified because the vaccines carry very low risks to individuals and those risks are vastly outweighed by the benefits. It would be hugely immoral if people were being fired for refusing to take on greater risk to reduce the risk to others.

COVID cases have increased in children by 240% since July and now account for 29% of all reported cases. Children account for 1.6-4.0% of cumulative hospitalizations, and up to 2% of children COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalization. Risk of death is still low, but I don't think we can say that "children aren't affected as much" or "COVID-19 doesn't result in hospitalization in children" any more. Source: AAP (https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-state-level-data-report/)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on September 15, 2021, 04:05:17 AM
Quote from: Caracal on September 14, 2021, 05:55:08 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2021, 01:53:19 PM
Quote from: Caracal on September 09, 2021, 04:46:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 09, 2021, 03:00:33 PM
Quote from: Aster on September 09, 2021, 02:52:11 PM
I learned today that not only has Cuba developed it own covid vaccine, but it will be giving it to small children as young as 2 years old.

Call the FDA for approval here.

I suspect that Cuba is just taking shortcuts on testing and safety trials. They might get away with it, but it isn't something we should want to see happen here. The vaccine will almost certainly be effective for young children. My understanding is that they aren't even running the large control trials like they did with adults. .

Likewise, we started vaccinating pregnant women without doing any specific trials.  Sometimes, decisions have to be made with what evidence is available.  There is a long history of vaccinating very young children, so this seems like a fairly safe and calculated risk.

Many people will say that since it dosn't really impact children as bad, it is not as important to vaccinate them.  However, this misses the point with vaccines.  A part of their use is personal protection (ie. get vaccinated and you are less likely to die), but the greater power is herd immunity to prevent community spread.  This is my issue with the "personal freedom" folk.  If it were as simple as take the vaccine to protect yourself, I would say you should be completely free to choose, but the real point of a vaccine program is not really about individuals at all and is a public health issue.   

I read a recent claim from our doctors that with the delta variant and its transmisability, it is mathematically impossible for us to reach herd immunity without vaccinating children under 12, even if everyone else accepted it.  So, until we start vaccinating children they are just a breeding ground for covid and we will not get it under control.



It isn't ok to ask a group of people at low risk of serious illness from Covid to get vaccinated before you've made sure the vaccines are safe for them so other people can be protected. That's especially true if those people can't legally or morally make the decisions about getting vaccinated themselves.

Most vaccines have been trialed on children first because they were the ones at most risk from the disease. That's true of almost all of the early vaccines. Pregnant women are a bad comparison. There really was no biological mechanism by which pregnant women or unborn children would be at any particular risk from vaccines and they were at potentially high risk from the virus.

Now, the vaccines should work fine on kids and I haven't really seen any actual experts saying they foresee any serious problems, but there are actual mechanisms by which they could cause more side effects in kids. Probably it will be fine, but you need to actually make sure before you just starting giving them to all children.

Also, I think you've missed the point about companies and institutions requiring vaccines. It can only be justified because the vaccines carry very low risks to individuals and those risks are vastly outweighed by the benefits. It would be hugely immoral if people were being fired for refusing to take on greater risk to reduce the risk to others.

This is not my area, so I would leave the risk assessment to the doctors working in that field.  My point was not that we should just start injecting them, just to highlight the importance of getting to it if/when possible and why some risk may be acceptable.  The Cuban medical system is actually pretty good, despite being resource poor, so I don't think they are just injecting wildly

Regarding vaccine mandates, where I am this is not a workplace decision and we have vaccine passports rolling out.  It is very much about preventing community spread and not personal protection.

I think it is morally acceptable to require people to take on a low level of risk to protect others if their risk level is high.  For example, if you work in a hospital ward with immunocompromised people, you should damn well be vaccinated even though there is some risk to you.  This is an extreme example, but the point is that you not getting it puts others at risk, so whos rights are more important?  This particular personal choice impacts everyone and is a public health decision. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 15, 2021, 04:43:20 AM
Quote from: pgher on September 14, 2021, 06:02:00 PM


COVID cases have increased in children by 240% since July and now account for 29% of all reported cases. Children account for 1.6-4.0% of cumulative hospitalizations, and up to 2% of children COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalization. Risk of death is still low, but I don't think we can say that "children aren't affected as much" or "COVID-19 doesn't result in hospitalization in children" any more. Source: AAP (https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-state-level-data-report/)

We absolutely can say that children aren't at nearly as high a risk as adults of severe illness and death. https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/COVID19_5.html

Covid cases are going up among kids because they are going up in general. They also have gone up as an overall percentage of cases because vaccinations prevent cases in adults. Kids are still at much lower risk of hospitalization and death than adults and those percentages haven't changed at all. I also wouldn't put too much stock in percentage of cases resulting in hospitalization. There's a denominator problem there given the almost certainly lower rate of diagnoses to infections for kids.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 15, 2021, 04:45:23 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 15, 2021, 04:05:17 AM


This is not my area, so I would leave the risk assessment to the doctors working in that field.  My point was not that we should just start injecting them, just to highlight the importance of getting to it if/when possible and why some risk may be acceptable.  The Cuban medical system is actually pretty good, despite being resource poor, so I don't think they are just injecting wildly

Regarding vaccine mandates, where I am this is not a workplace decision and we have vaccine passports rolling out.  It is very much about preventing community spread and not personal protection.

I think it is morally acceptable to require people to take on a low level of risk to protect others if their risk level is high.  For example, if you work in a hospital ward with immunocompromised people, you should damn well be vaccinated even though there is some risk to you.  This is an extreme example, but the point is that you not getting it puts others at risk, so whos rights are more important?  This particular personal choice impacts everyone and is a public health decision.

I think we more or less agree about risk and mandates. By all accounts vaccines for kids are coming by this winter.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on September 15, 2021, 06:13:44 AM
So my employer isn't going to have a vaccine mandate , and while on paper there's going to be a mask mandate, forget about enforcement, both because basically of the higher-ups' cowardice. Contact-tracing isn't even on the radar. The only good news is that in-person attendance isn't going to be mandatory, and that I can continue to mostly teach online.

On a more positive note, I'm happy to say wife and I have finally had the second vax dose (shitty location - we had it literally on the first day it became available to us).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on September 15, 2021, 04:54:32 PM
We have a very late start to Fall classes since we're on the quarter system.  My biggest worry isn't whether students are vaccinated or whether they will wear their masks properly.  My biggest worry is that there is NO PLAN for what criteria mean we have to go back online.  We have students in "learning groups" who take all of their classes together.  If ONE of their classmates tests positive, then they ALL have to isolate & get tested.  I could lose entire sections of students with 0 notice.  There aren't enough hours in the day for me to suddenly offer an online make-up lab (and I'd need TAs to teach it).  And I have no confidence that the TAs or I will get notified of any positive cases with enough time to do anything.  I very much doubt that the contact tracing will contact ALL of their instructors or classmates.  I don't even want to think about the nightmare of the residence halls, dining, or other common spaces.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on September 15, 2021, 06:26:49 PM
QuoteWe have a very late start to Fall classes since we're on the quarter system.  My biggest worry isn't whether students are vaccinated or whether they will wear their masks properly.  My biggest worry is that there is NO PLAN for what criteria mean we have to go back online.  We have students in "learning groups" who take all of their classes together.  If ONE of their classmates tests positive, then they ALL have to isolate & get tested.  I could lose entire sections of students with 0 notice.  There aren't enough hours in the day for me to suddenly offer an online make-up lab (and I'd need TAs to teach it).  And I have no confidence that the TAs or I will get notified of any positive cases with enough time to do anything.  I very much doubt that the contact tracing will contact ALL of their instructors or classmates.  I don't even want to think about the nightmare of the residence halls, dining, or other common spaces.

I suspect that they will follow the advice of the former president who said, "I told them to Stop Testing Please". 

IF they do not test, then no one can be positive  and require the problems you outline!!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 16, 2021, 06:32:51 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on September 15, 2021, 04:54:32 PM
We have a very late start to Fall classes since we're on the quarter system.  My biggest worry isn't whether students are vaccinated or whether they will wear their masks properly.  My biggest worry is that there is NO PLAN for what criteria mean we have to go back online.  We have students in "learning groups" who take all of their classes together.  If ONE of their classmates tests positive, then they ALL have to isolate & get tested.  I could lose entire sections of students with 0 notice.  There aren't enough hours in the day for me to suddenly offer an online make-up lab (and I'd need TAs to teach it).  And I have no confidence that the TAs or I will get notified of any positive cases with enough time to do anything.  I very much doubt that the contact tracing will contact ALL of their instructors or classmates.  I don't even want to think about the nightmare of the residence halls, dining, or other common spaces.

The CDC guidelines say that if everyone is masked in classrooms, those people aren't contacts. That makes sense. There really hasn't been much spread in classrooms when everyone is masked. You are right though that clarity on these things is important. Otherwise you have this situation where everyone is worried that classes might go back online at any moment, but there's no sense of what would trigger that or what the rationale would be.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on September 16, 2021, 06:41:07 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on September 15, 2021, 04:54:32 PM
We have a very late start to Fall classes since we're on the quarter system.  My biggest worry isn't whether students are vaccinated or whether they will wear their masks properly.  My biggest worry is that there is NO PLAN for what criteria mean we have to go back online.  We have students in "learning groups" who take all of their classes together.  If ONE of their classmates tests positive, then they ALL have to isolate & get tested.  I could lose entire sections of students with 0 notice.  There aren't enough hours in the day for me to suddenly offer an online make-up lab (and I'd need TAs to teach it).  And I have no confidence that the TAs or I will get notified of any positive cases with enough time to do anything.  I very much doubt that the contact tracing will contact ALL of their instructors or classmates.  I don't even want to think about the nightmare of the residence halls, dining, or other common spaces.

Fortunately I am not teaching this semester, but last year when I selected in person labs I was required to also provide a virtual option in case some students could not come (in isolation, health issues, etc).  This also makes it possible to pivot on 0 notice.  The TA I had last year is doing the course again and told me that he has to provide both options again this year.

It is a lot more work, but seems like the prudent choice.  Our university provided extra TA support on a case by case basis, so I was able to get extra support.  If your university if not providing such support, I would probably still try to have a virtual alternative but the design and quality would suffer. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: RatGuy on September 16, 2021, 08:56:05 AM
Quote from: Caracal on September 16, 2021, 06:32:51 AM
The CDC guidelines say that if everyone is masked in classrooms, those people aren't contacts. That makes sense. There really hasn't been much spread in classrooms when everyone is masked.

I think there's a disagreement at my university defining "everyone masked." In an email survey conducted last week, faculty in History and American Studies reported about 98% compliance with students wearing masks properly in class, while about 50% of English reported properly worn masks. English faculty also argued that first-year students were a lot less likely to wear their masks properly, and were a lot more likely to remove or drop masks when speaking to another student. So there seems to be a disagreement even within the same building. So the Dean's Office is hearing two competing narratives in that particular building: "the mask mandate is working and faculty feel safe" and "the students are bucking the mask mandate and faculty feel unsafe."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on September 16, 2021, 09:08:39 AM
I got a hairy eyeball (probably a scowl, too, but I couldn't tell) from a faculty colleague b/c I was walking across campus without a mask.   At FishProfU, masks are explicitly required inside all buildings (except your office w/ the door closed) and explicitly NOT required outside.  Also, Vaccine mandate.

So I am assiduously following the rules. Back Off!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on September 16, 2021, 11:13:10 AM
Still, better that way than the other.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 16, 2021, 12:21:57 PM
Quote from: FishProf on September 16, 2021, 09:08:39 AM
I got a hairy eyeball (probably a scowl, too, but I couldn't tell) from a faculty colleague b/c I was walking across campus without a mask.   At FishProfU, masks are explicitly required inside all buildings (except your office w/ the door closed) and explicitly NOT required outside.  Also, Vaccine mandate.

So I am assiduously following the rules. Back Off!

Yeah, I have to hustle between classes this semester and am already sweaty by the time I get to the building and when I put the mask on I start looking like I just got out of the shower. Definitely not interested in walking all the way there with a mask on too. The chance that a vaccinated person is going to give anyone covid outdoors has to be incredibly small.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on September 16, 2021, 11:46:31 PM
It is the example for the students.

Put on the damn mask and cut out your whinin'.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 17, 2021, 06:35:03 AM
Another one of my students has COVID.

Twice a week, I walk down Hallway A and see an instructor, who doesn't wear a mask, teach a FULL classroom of kids, who don't wear masks. This person did put one on when a bunch of admins came by, but then went back to no mask. One of my positive kids was in this class...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 17, 2021, 07:20:50 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 16, 2021, 11:46:31 PM
It is the example for the students.

Put on the damn mask and cut out your whinin'.

My students are required to wear a mask in buildings. They aren't required to wear one outside. Rules should fit with the evidence. There are very few cases of real outdoor transmission and almost all of them involve people in close proximity for extended periods of time. I'm perfectly happy to model for students that wearing masks inside in accordance with the rules is important to limit transmission, but outside where the risk is tiny, you can do what makes you feel most comfortable.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on September 17, 2021, 07:35:26 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 16, 2021, 11:46:31 PM
It is the example for the students.

Put on the damn mask and cut out your whinin'.
And that's why I'll wear my mask in all indoor spaces.
Masks are not required outside.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 17, 2021, 08:17:52 PM
one of our lab techs. got sick. Breakthrough. :(
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on September 20, 2021, 12:29:38 PM
Mayor Bowser announced all DC school staff (public and private) must vaccinated by November 1st. This order includes support staff:
https://wtop.com/dc/2021/09/all-dc-public-private-school-staff-must-be-vaccinated-mayor-says/ (https://wtop.com/dc/2021/09/all-dc-public-private-school-staff-must-be-vaccinated-mayor-says/)
Posted on WTOP Radio online (9/20/21)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: rac on September 20, 2021, 06:06:39 PM
Our students are supposed to wear masks inside, but are allowed to drink. Of course almost everybody is sipping from a bottle. Does this count as masked or unmasked (scientifically; the university clearly counts it as masked)?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on September 20, 2021, 06:07:36 PM
Quote from: rac on September 20, 2021, 06:06:39 PM
Our students are supposed to wear masks inside, but are allowed to drink. Of course almost everybody is sipping from a bottle. Does this count as masked or unmasked (scientifically; the university clearly counts it as masked)?
un-
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 21, 2021, 04:57:51 AM
Quote from: rac on September 20, 2021, 06:06:39 PM
Our students are supposed to wear masks inside, but are allowed to drink. Of course almost everybody is sipping from a bottle. Does this count as masked or unmasked (scientifically; the university clearly counts it as masked)?

I think you're misunderstanding what masks do. They aren't binary. Transmission is a matter of time and amount of virus. I get the impression that people tend to think of getting covid as like getting cooties-an infected person breathes in the room and everyone gets exposed. It's closer to carbon monoxide building up in an enclosed space. If someone drives into the garage and leaves the engine running for a minute, it isn't likely to generate enough CO2 to make anyone sick. If they left it running for 20 minutes that would be a different story.

If someone has a bottle of water in class for an hour and takes a sip from it every 10 minutes, everyone is a lot more protected than they would be if the person was maskless the whole time. Are they as protected as they would be if the person didn't take any sips of water? No, but if you imagine a line with full protection at one end and no protection at the other, I'd assume they would be much closer to the full protection. Even if they are taking more sips than that, I'd imagine it's still better than someone wearing an ill fitting, or crummy mask.

Besides, what do you want to do? Tell students they can't drink water indoors?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on September 21, 2021, 07:30:27 AM
Straws work just fine.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on September 21, 2021, 07:32:21 AM
Quote from: Caracal on September 21, 2021, 04:57:51 AM
Quote from: rac on September 20, 2021, 06:06:39 PM
Our students are supposed to wear masks inside, but are allowed to drink. Of course almost everybody is sipping from a bottle. Does this count as masked or unmasked (scientifically; the university clearly counts it as masked)?

I think you're misunderstanding what masks do. They aren't binary. Transmission is a matter of time and amount of virus. I get the impression that people tend to think of getting covid as like getting cooties-an infected person breathes in the room and everyone gets exposed. It's closer to carbon monoxide building up in an enclosed space. If someone drives into the garage and leaves the engine running for a minute, it isn't likely to generate enough CO2 to make anyone sick. If they left it running for 20 minutes that would be a different story.

If someone has a bottle of water in class for an hour and takes a sip from it every 10 minutes, everyone is a lot more protected than they would be if the person was maskless the whole time. Are they as protected as they would be if the person didn't take any sips of water? No, but if you imagine a line with full protection at one end and no protection at the other, I'd assume they would be much closer to the full protection. Even if they are taking more sips than that, I'd imagine it's still better than someone wearing an ill fitting, or crummy mask.

Besides, what do you want to do? Tell students they can't drink water indoors?

Well, I remember a time when students weren't allowed to eat or drink in class at all.  And only very seldom ever needed to interrupt class to go to the bathroom, for some reason.

You're right that in calculating risks we need to bear in mind that exposure is in large part a function of how many people are in a given amount of space for a given amount of time.  For example, we have a library facility with a considerable amount of square footage, high ceilings, and good ventilation.  A library in a neighboring town has a fraction of the square footage and low ceilings.  They've found it necessary to take more stringent precautions against COVID--limiting the number of people in the building at one time and such--as a result. 

I wouldn't think that sipping from a water bottle would invalidate wearing a mask, IF they kept the mask in place when not actually taking a sip.  That's why restaurants often require customers to mask up while waiting for their meals.  It still cuts down on the building's virus load.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 21, 2021, 08:50:33 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 21, 2021, 07:32:21 AM
Quote from: Caracal on September 21, 2021, 04:57:51 AM
Quote from: rac on September 20, 2021, 06:06:39 PM
Our students are supposed to wear masks inside, but are allowed to drink. Of course almost everybody is sipping from a bottle. Does this count as masked or unmasked (scientifically; the university clearly counts it as masked)?

I think you're misunderstanding what masks do. They aren't binary. Transmission is a matter of time and amount of virus. I get the impression that people tend to think of getting covid as like getting cooties-an infected person breathes in the room and everyone gets exposed. It's closer to carbon monoxide building up in an enclosed space. If someone drives into the garage and leaves the engine running for a minute, it isn't likely to generate enough CO2 to make anyone sick. If they left it running for 20 minutes that would be a different story.

If someone has a bottle of water in class for an hour and takes a sip from it every 10 minutes, everyone is a lot more protected than they would be if the person was maskless the whole time. Are they as protected as they would be if the person didn't take any sips of water? No, but if you imagine a line with full protection at one end and no protection at the other, I'd assume they would be much closer to the full protection. Even if they are taking more sips than that, I'd imagine it's still better than someone wearing an ill fitting, or crummy mask.

Besides, what do you want to do? Tell students they can't drink water indoors?

Well, I remember a time when students weren't allowed to eat or drink in class at all.  And only very seldom ever needed to interrupt class to go to the bathroom, for some reason.




There was a whole Seinfeld episode about how Elaine hated this guy in her college class who said "aaaah" every time he took a sip of coffee. I'm sure there was some point where drinking was banned in classes, but it must have been a long time ago?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on September 21, 2021, 11:54:21 PM
Quote from: Caracal on September 21, 2021, 04:57:51 AM
Quote from: rac on September 20, 2021, 06:06:39 PM
Our students are supposed to wear masks inside, but are allowed to drink. Of course almost everybody is sipping from a bottle. Does this count as masked or unmasked (scientifically; the university clearly counts it as masked)?

I think you're misunderstanding what masks do. They aren't binary. Transmission is a matter of time and amount of virus. I get the impression that people tend to think of getting covid as like getting cooties-an infected person breathes in the room and everyone gets exposed. It's closer to carbon monoxide building up in an enclosed space. If someone drives into the garage and leaves the engine running for a minute, it isn't likely to generate enough CO2 to make anyone sick. If they left it running for 20 minutes that would be a different story.

If someone has a bottle of water in class for an hour and takes a sip from it every 10 minutes, everyone is a lot more protected than they would be if the person was maskless the whole time. Are they as protected as they would be if the person didn't take any sips of water? No, but if you imagine a line with full protection at one end and no protection at the other, I'd assume they would be much closer to the full protection. Even if they are taking more sips than that, I'd imagine it's still better than someone wearing an ill fitting, or crummy mask.

Besides, what do you want to do? Tell students they can't drink water indoors?
Of course it's not binary, and yes, of course, it's far better to be masked between sips than not to be masked at all. 

But if people are sipping *as a way to keep their masks off* for a good chunk of the class period (which is how I read rac's post), and/or many people are doing it, then yes, it meaningfully increases the risk of virus transmission compared with a class who keep their masks on for 50 whole minutes and who drink water outside between class periods or during breaks.  (You imply that this is unreasonable; I disagree.)

With the delta variant, the time to reach an infectious dose in an enclosed space appears to be much lower than with some earlier variants.  This is not a wholly unreasonable concern for those of us who don't live in vaccine-mandate-land and/or who are in areas with high transmission.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 22, 2021, 04:20:54 AM
Quote from: namazu on September 21, 2021, 11:54:21 PM
Quote from: Caracal on September 21, 2021, 04:57:51 AM
Quote from: rac on September 20, 2021, 06:06:39 PM
Our students are supposed to wear masks inside, but are allowed to drink. Of course almost everybody is sipping from a bottle. Does this count as masked or unmasked (scientifically; the university clearly counts it as masked)?

I think you're misunderstanding what masks do. They aren't binary. Transmission is a matter of time and amount of virus. I get the impression that people tend to think of getting covid as like getting cooties-an infected person breathes in the room and everyone gets exposed. It's closer to carbon monoxide building up in an enclosed space. If someone drives into the garage and leaves the engine running for a minute, it isn't likely to generate enough CO2 to make anyone sick. If they left it running for 20 minutes that would be a different story.

If someone has a bottle of water in class for an hour and takes a sip from it every 10 minutes, everyone is a lot more protected than they would be if the person was maskless the whole time. Are they as protected as they would be if the person didn't take any sips of water? No, but if you imagine a line with full protection at one end and no protection at the other, I'd assume they would be much closer to the full protection. Even if they are taking more sips than that, I'd imagine it's still better than someone wearing an ill fitting, or crummy mask.

Besides, what do you want to do? Tell students they can't drink water indoors?
Of course it's not binary, and yes, of course, it's far better to be masked between sips than not to be masked at all. 

But if people are sipping *as a way to keep their masks off* for a good chunk of the class period (which is how I read rac's post), and/or many people are doing it, then yes, it meaningfully increases the risk of virus transmission compared with a class who keep their masks on for 50 whole minutes and who drink water outside between class periods or during breaks.  (You imply that this is unreasonable; I disagree.)

With the delta variant, the time to reach an infectious dose in an enclosed space appears to be much lower than with some earlier variants.  This is not a wholly unreasonable concern for those of us who don't live in vaccine-mandate-land and/or who are in areas with high transmission.

Well, I teach somewhere without a mandate in an area with pretty high transmission at the moment. Look, I would prefer not to get covid too, but as a vaccinated person, my chances of having a serious case are very low. That's why I'm happy to be back in the classroom. I'm glad we have a mask mandate. However, you have to accept the limitations of masks, and those limitations are mostly down to humans wearing them. Since I like having humans in my classes, I don't really want to spend my time and energy obsessing about mask rules and ways in which I can imagine students might be evading them.

The alternative is having more and more rules and making class more unpleasant and restrictive for students. I still haven't seen any reports of clusters of cases in college classrooms, so I can't really see what the justification for rules like that would be. It is fine to want to reduce risk, but at some point you have to realize you can't eliminate it entirely.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on September 22, 2021, 09:37:35 AM
Quote from: namazu on September 21, 2021, 11:54:21 PM
Quote from: Caracal on September 21, 2021, 04:57:51 AM
Quote from: rac on September 20, 2021, 06:06:39 PM
Our students are supposed to wear masks inside, but are allowed to drink. Of course almost everybody is sipping from a bottle. Does this count as masked or unmasked (scientifically; the university clearly counts it as masked)?

I think you're misunderstanding what masks do. They aren't binary. Transmission is a matter of time and amount of virus. I get the impression that people tend to think of getting covid as like getting cooties-an infected person breathes in the room and everyone gets exposed. It's closer to carbon monoxide building up in an enclosed space. If someone drives into the garage and leaves the engine running for a minute, it isn't likely to generate enough CO2 to make anyone sick. If they left it running for 20 minutes that would be a different story.

If someone has a bottle of water in class for an hour and takes a sip from it every 10 minutes, everyone is a lot more protected than they would be if the person was maskless the whole time. Are they as protected as they would be if the person didn't take any sips of water? No, but if you imagine a line with full protection at one end and no protection at the other, I'd assume they would be much closer to the full protection. Even if they are taking more sips than that, I'd imagine it's still better than someone wearing an ill fitting, or crummy mask.

Besides, what do you want to do? Tell students they can't drink water indoors?
Of course it's not binary, and yes, of course, it's far better to be masked between sips than not to be masked at all. 

But if people are sipping *as a way to keep their masks off* for a good chunk of the class period (which is how I read rac's post), and/or many people are doing it, then yes, it meaningfully increases the risk of virus transmission compared with a class who keep their masks on for 50 whole minutes and who drink water outside between class periods or during breaks.  (You imply that this is unreasonable; I disagree.)

With the delta variant, the time to reach an infectious dose in an enclosed space appears to be much lower than with some earlier variants.  This is not a wholly unreasonable concern for those of us who don't live in vaccine-mandate-land and/or who are in areas with high transmission.

Airlines are having to deal with passengers who try to use the "but I have a drink" as an excuse to not wear their masks on flights.  I feel like there is market potential for a mask with a sippy straw attachment.  Sure, folks would look silly wearing one, but they would be masked up, able to enjoy their drink, and someone would be making a profit!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on September 23, 2021, 12:38:09 AM
A straw will slide under a mask k. I'm just trying to find a place to buy a steel one. I've seen them in pubs but not retail.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on September 23, 2021, 04:41:54 AM
Quote from: science.expat on September 23, 2021, 12:38:09 AM
A straw will slide under a mask k. I'm just trying to find a place to buy a steel one. I've seen them in pubs but not retail.

Amazon has them.

I kind of prefer the silicon straws personally...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on September 23, 2021, 04:49:48 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 23, 2021, 04:41:54 AM
Quote from: science.expat on September 23, 2021, 12:38:09 AM
A straw will slide under a mask k. I'm just trying to find a place to buy a steel one. I've seen them in pubs but not retail.

Amazon has them.

I kind of prefer the silicon straws personally...

Also IKEA.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on September 23, 2021, 11:49:31 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 21, 2021, 07:32:21 AM
Well, I remember a time when students weren't allowed to eat or drink in class at all. 

Hopefully that's still the case for some classes at least - sure, put your sandwich there, just move the aqua regia and the benzene somewhere, and keep that container labelled "Potassium" away from the sink...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on September 23, 2021, 12:18:31 PM
I had a student the other day who was sitting in the front. He got out his thermos and poured out some soup into the cup part and started on it with a spoon, mask under chin.

I hadn't quite registered what he was doing because it seemed about as likely as him taking a dump on the floor. I did a double-take when I realized.

You will be glad to know I kept my professional reserve in asking him to cease and desist in his activity, which he did, with apparent surprise that I might have a problem with it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 23, 2021, 12:36:59 PM
Quote from: downer on September 23, 2021, 12:18:31 PM
I had a student the other day who was sitting in the front. He got out his thermos and poured out some soup into the cup part and started on it with a spoon, mask under chin.

I hadn't quite registered what he was doing because it seemed about as likely as him taking a dump on the floor. I did a double-take when I realized.

You will be glad to know I kept my professional reserve in asking him to cease and desist in his activity, which he did, with apparent surprise that I might have a problem with it.

In normal times, I don't really care if students eat in class, but I feel like the basic rule ought to be that you can't eat anything that you can't hold in one hand while eating. If it needs silverware you can't eat it in class. If you need to eat it out of the container, you can't eat it in class. No boxes of food and no spreads. If you need to hold a sandwich like thing in both hands to eat it, it's too much.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on September 23, 2021, 01:02:22 PM
In the past my rule has been they can't eat anything that other people can smell or hear.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on September 23, 2021, 01:09:21 PM
The median American is eating.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on September 23, 2021, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: downer on September 23, 2021, 12:18:31 PM
I had a student the other day who was sitting in the front. He got out his thermos and poured out some soup into the cup part and started on it with a spoon, mask under chin.

I hadn't quite registered what he was doing because it seemed about as likely as him taking a dump on the floor. I did a double-take when I realized.

You will be glad to know I kept my professional reserve in asking him to cease and desist in his activity, which he did, with apparent surprise that I might have a problem with it.

This should go in the banging head thread, but here it is.

I once had a student who would bring a salad bowl to class and proceed to have a leisurely meal, holding the bowl in one hand, and a fork in the other. This was a writing class, so since Stu spent more time eating than writing, Stu failed the course. I had a long conversation with Stu explaining why using one's writing hand for purposes other than writing in a writing class was not such a good idea. The following couple of semesters I had a sentence in my syllabus to the effect that students could consume snacks that didn't involve the use of tableware but that they needed to be able to use their writing hand in class. In another class a student was likewise using both hands on a meal, one hand to hold the take-out container, and the other hand to weild chopsticks.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on September 25, 2021, 07:55:34 AM
This makes me glad I teach labs.  Absolutely no eating or drinking in the lab rooms.  The nonmajors students are sometimes a bit baffled "but isn't this just a discussion?"  No!  What sort of "discussion section" would 1) last for 3 hours and 2) require you to wear a lab coat while handling chemicals.
The worst was a student that tried to hide a giant takeout box on their lap and sneak bites when they thought the TA wasn't watching.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on September 28, 2021, 07:30:29 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 16, 2021, 11:46:31 PM
It is the example for the students.

Put on the damn mask and cut out your whinin'.

Was that directed at me?  Bite me.

Exactly what example should I be setting?  Ignore the rules and due what the least comfortable among us think is needed?  If that's the case, we should all be teaching remotely judging by the number of my colleagues who have bailed on their in-person commitments.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 28, 2021, 08:19:57 AM
More of my in-person students are experiencing symptoms. I'll find out later if they are +.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on September 28, 2021, 09:54:08 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 28, 2021, 08:19:57 AM
More of my in-person students are experiencing symptoms. I'll find out later if they are +.

Yikes!

I had one student come to me in tears after class b/c she had been with someone all weekend who had tested positive.  So far, she's negative, but what a thing to discover after a three-hour lab.

And I only know because the student told me.  Student Health Services has been absolutely silent.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 10:22:59 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 28, 2021, 08:19:57 AM
More of my in-person students are experiencing symptoms. I'll find out later if they are +.

We are a month in. I've had lots of students miss class because of symptoms. Most haven't been positive, but a few have. I've also had students miss a few classes because they had an exposure. We don't appear to be having any huge outbreaks on campus and there's no indication of any clusters in classes, its just that I teach 150 students and there's a lot of covid around. I'm quite glad I'm vaccinated.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on September 28, 2021, 11:26:31 AM
Quote from: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 10:22:59 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 28, 2021, 08:19:57 AM
More of my in-person students are experiencing symptoms. I'll find out later if they are +.

We are a month in. I've had lots of students miss class because of symptoms. Most haven't been positive, but a few have. I've also had students miss a few classes because they had an exposure. We don't appear to be having any huge outbreaks on campus and there's no indication of any clusters in classes, its just that I teach 150 students and there's a lot of covid around. I'm quite glad I'm vaccinated.

I hate to say it, but I suspect students are starting to use claims of the need to quarantine as the new killing off of grandparents. Our case numbers and close contact in quarantine have been very, very low (vax requirement +masks), I can see the count on our campus dashboard and roughly calculate the probabilities, so either my classes have been really unlucky, or some students are lying. Of course I'm not going to share these suspicions with them, but I do remind them that-- lucky them!-- this is a flipped course so they can still complete all the lectures and online assignments on time and catch up on the discussion section material and complete their in class assignments during TA office hours, so they shouldn't need extensions. Funnily enough, many of these students fail to do so, and indeed have missed multiple assignments in the past as well.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on September 28, 2021, 11:34:26 AM
Quote from: Puget on September 28, 2021, 11:26:31 AM
Quote from: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 10:22:59 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 28, 2021, 08:19:57 AM
More of my in-person students are experiencing symptoms. I'll find out later if they are +.

We are a month in. I've had lots of students miss class because of symptoms. Most haven't been positive, but a few have. I've also had students miss a few classes because they had an exposure. We don't appear to be having any huge outbreaks on campus and there's no indication of any clusters in classes, its just that I teach 150 students and there's a lot of covid around. I'm quite glad I'm vaccinated.

I hate to say it, but I suspect students are starting to use claims of the need to quarantine as the new killing off of grandparents. Our case numbers and close contact in quarantine have been very, very low (vax requirement +masks), I can see the count on our campus dashboard and roughly calculate the probabilities, so either my classes have been really unlucky, or some students are lying. Of course I'm not going to share these suspicions with them, but I do remind them that-- lucky them!-- this is a flipped course so they can still complete all the lectures and online assignments on time and catch up on the discussion section material and complete their in class assignments during TA office hours, so they shouldn't need extensions. Funnily enough, many of these students fail to do so, and indeed have missed multiple assignments in the past as well.

Our students have to fill out a campus survey every day (in theory) to see if they are cleared to come to campus.  So, if they are sick we can ask to see the "You are NOT cleared to come to campus" email for that particular student.  It's not an invasion of privacy since it doesn't tell us anything the student didn't already disclose by saying they need to quarantine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 12:42:53 PM
Quote from: Puget on September 28, 2021, 11:26:31 AM
Quote from: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 10:22:59 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 28, 2021, 08:19:57 AM
More of my in-person students are experiencing symptoms. I'll find out later if they are +.

We are a month in. I've had lots of students miss class because of symptoms. Most haven't been positive, but a few have. I've also had students miss a few classes because they had an exposure. We don't appear to be having any huge outbreaks on campus and there's no indication of any clusters in classes, its just that I teach 150 students and there's a lot of covid around. I'm quite glad I'm vaccinated.

I hate to say it, but I suspect students are starting to use claims of the need to quarantine as the new killing off of grandparents. Our case numbers and close contact in quarantine have been very, very low (vax requirement +masks), I can see the count on our campus dashboard and roughly calculate the probabilities, so either my classes have been really unlucky, or some students are lying. Of course I'm not going to share these suspicions with them, but I do remind them that-- lucky them!-- this is a flipped course so they can still complete all the lectures and online assignments on time and catch up on the discussion section material and complete their in class assignments during TA office hours, so they shouldn't need extensions. Funnily enough, many of these students fail to do so, and indeed have missed multiple assignments in the past as well.

Maybe, but I'm inclined to give students the benefit of the doubt and assume many of them are just being cautious about minor illnesses they wouldn't have worried much about before.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on September 28, 2021, 01:28:10 PM
Quote from: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 12:42:53 PM
Quote from: Puget on September 28, 2021, 11:26:31 AM
Quote from: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 10:22:59 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 28, 2021, 08:19:57 AM
More of my in-person students are experiencing symptoms. I'll find out later if they are +.

We are a month in. I've had lots of students miss class because of symptoms. Most haven't been positive, but a few have. I've also had students miss a few classes because they had an exposure. We don't appear to be having any huge outbreaks on campus and there's no indication of any clusters in classes, its just that I teach 150 students and there's a lot of covid around. I'm quite glad I'm vaccinated.

I hate to say it, but I suspect students are starting to use claims of the need to quarantine as the new killing off of grandparents. Our case numbers and close contact in quarantine have been very, very low (vax requirement +masks), I can see the count on our campus dashboard and roughly calculate the probabilities, so either my classes have been really unlucky, or some students are lying. Of course I'm not going to share these suspicions with them, but I do remind them that-- lucky them!-- this is a flipped course so they can still complete all the lectures and online assignments on time and catch up on the discussion section material and complete their in class assignments during TA office hours, so they shouldn't need extensions. Funnily enough, many of these students fail to do so, and indeed have missed multiple assignments in the past as well.

Maybe, but I'm inclined to give students the benefit of the doubt and assume many of them are just being cautious about minor illnesses they wouldn't have worried much about before.

Sure I do too, and I always tell students to stay home if they are sick, but I'm talking about students who say they have to quarantine due to a close contact or positive test-- the numbers just don't really line up there with the probabilities you'd expect based on the campus wide-numbers.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 02:14:04 PM
Quote from: Puget on September 28, 2021, 01:28:10 PM
Quote from: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 12:42:53 PM
Quote from: Puget on September 28, 2021, 11:26:31 AM
Quote from: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 10:22:59 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 28, 2021, 08:19:57 AM
More of my in-person students are experiencing symptoms. I'll find out later if they are +.

We are a month in. I've had lots of students miss class because of symptoms. Most haven't been positive, but a few have. I've also had students miss a few classes because they had an exposure. We don't appear to be having any huge outbreaks on campus and there's no indication of any clusters in classes, its just that I teach 150 students and there's a lot of covid around. I'm quite glad I'm vaccinated.

I hate to say it, but I suspect students are starting to use claims of the need to quarantine as the new killing off of grandparents. Our case numbers and close contact in quarantine have been very, very low (vax requirement +masks), I can see the count on our campus dashboard and roughly calculate the probabilities, so either my classes have been really unlucky, or some students are lying. Of course I'm not going to share these suspicions with them, but I do remind them that-- lucky them!-- this is a flipped course so they can still complete all the lectures and online assignments on time and catch up on the discussion section material and complete their in class assignments during TA office hours, so they shouldn't need extensions. Funnily enough, many of these students fail to do so, and indeed have missed multiple assignments in the past as well.

Maybe, but I'm inclined to give students the benefit of the doubt and assume many of them are just being cautious about minor illnesses they wouldn't have worried much about before.

Sure I do too, and I always tell students to stay home if they are sick, but I'm talking about students who say they have to quarantine due to a close contact or positive test-- the numbers just don't really line up there with the probabilities you'd expect based on the campus wide-numbers.

Yeah, I suppose it is inevitable that some students will use it as an excuse. As you say though, nobody ever really "gets away" with missing class. The only reason I take attendance is because too many of my students assume that if I don't they don't need to worry about coming to class. If you have to make stuff up, at least you're aware you should be coming.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 28, 2021, 04:03:40 PM
Quote from: the_geneticist on September 28, 2021, 11:34:26 AM
Quote from: Puget on September 28, 2021, 11:26:31 AM
Quote from: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 10:22:59 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 28, 2021, 08:19:57 AM
More of my in-person students are experiencing symptoms. I'll find out later if they are +.

We are a month in. I've had lots of students miss class because of symptoms. Most haven't been positive, but a few have. I've also had students miss a few classes because they had an exposure. We don't appear to be having any huge outbreaks on campus and there's no indication of any clusters in classes, its just that I teach 150 students and there's a lot of covid around. I'm quite glad I'm vaccinated.

I hate to say it, but I suspect students are starting to use claims of the need to quarantine as the new killing off of grandparents. Our case numbers and close contact in quarantine have been very, very low (vax requirement +masks), I can see the count on our campus dashboard and roughly calculate the probabilities, so either my classes have been really unlucky, or some students are lying. Of course I'm not going to share these suspicions with them, but I do remind them that-- lucky them!-- this is a flipped course so they can still complete all the lectures and online assignments on time and catch up on the discussion section material and complete their in class assignments during TA office hours, so they shouldn't need extensions. Funnily enough, many of these students fail to do so, and indeed have missed multiple assignments in the past as well.

Our students have to fill out a campus survey every day (in theory) to see if they are cleared to come to campus.  So, if they are sick we can ask to see the "You are NOT cleared to come to campus" email for that particular student.  It's not an invasion of privacy since it doesn't tell us anything the student didn't already disclose by saying they need to quarantine.

We just have a half-assed self reporting system. One of my Covid kids came back, didn't wear a damn mask in class and we have no mask mandate, and sat near a bunch of other people who also didn't wear masks. I think the student is no longer contagious, but I don't know...

Do they think they're invincible?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on September 28, 2021, 11:01:03 PM
Go bite yourself.   My patience for those avoiding, or actively teaching against, vaxxing and masking, is done.   Period.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on September 29, 2021, 01:08:13 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 28, 2021, 11:01:03 PM
Go bite yourself.   My patience for those avoiding, or actively teaching against, vaxxing and masking, is done.   Period.
Kay, I understand your frustration with people who flout/thwart/sabotage public health measures, but your response is really uncalled for here.  There's a huge difference between being vocally opposed to masking even in situations where masking a vital part of transmission control, on the one hand, and simply taking off one's mask in situations where masking doesn't serve a useful purpose (e.g. outdoors in places where people are not close together), on the other.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on September 29, 2021, 04:23:44 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 28, 2021, 11:01:03 PM
Go bite yourself.   My patience for those avoiding, or actively teaching against, vaxxing and masking, is done.   Period.

Well, that's not me so your vitriol is misplaced.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on September 29, 2021, 05:31:41 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 28, 2021, 11:01:03 PM
Go bite yourself.   My patience for those avoiding, or actively teaching against, vaxxing and masking, is done.   Period.

YES!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on September 29, 2021, 06:26:49 AM
Quote from: namazu on September 29, 2021, 01:08:13 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 28, 2021, 11:01:03 PM
Go bite yourself.   My patience for those avoiding, or actively teaching against, vaxxing and masking, is done.   Period.
Kay, I understand your frustration with people who flout/thwart/sabotage public health measures, but your response is really uncalled for here.  There's a huge difference between being vocally opposed to masking even in situations where masking a vital part of transmission control, on the one hand, and simply taking off one's mask in situations where masking doesn't serve a useful purpose (e.g. outdoors in places where people are not close together), on the other.

Right, and I'll go further and say when people insist that others mask in situations where science doesn't support it, which is certainly true of walking outdoors, it undermines confidence that mask requirements are justified in general, and reduces compliance where it actually IS supported (indoors in public places almost everywhere in the US right now, due to high transmission rates). You can't scream "follow the science" and then reject the science when it says something *is* safe-- that's bad for everyone. Now, if you, Kaysixteen, feel more comfortable wearing a mask outdoors, that's fine, though I'd urge you to look at the actual data on (almost non-existent) outdoor transmission. But please don't yell at people who are actually following the science by taking their masks off outdoors, as almost everyplace permits.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on September 29, 2021, 06:34:47 AM
I find when I am in NYC, most people are masked when outside. Maybe that's because they are going in and out of stores or offices, but I think it is also due to a social pressure to conform. Maybe also because the pandemic was so traumatic in the city that people find it comforting to mask.

I generally don't wear a mask outside, or I wear it under my chin, and mask up with passing someone on the sidewalk.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 29, 2021, 10:52:32 AM
Quote from: Puget on September 29, 2021, 06:26:49 AM
and reduces compliance where it actually IS supported (indoors in public places almost everywhere in the US right now, due to high transmission rates).

Right. If you want people to comply with mask rules you have to give them a break. On my teaching days, I'm wearing a mask for about four hours. I'm not interested in also wearing it on a hot day while I hustle a half mile up the hill between classes.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on September 29, 2021, 10:39:50 PM
I get that my response was intense, but I was responding to FishProf's 'bite me'.

And I do get that masking is not as necessary everywhere at all times, and some places and times, it is not necessary more or less at all, but professors are teachers, and must set examples.   College kids will, like it or not, be much more ready to ignore masking reqs whenever they see their teachers not masking, even if the particular situation does not really require masking-- adolescents are not always knowledgeable about the nuances of situation, etc.

And I must cycle back to my general point-- I want to see this country go back as much as possible to pre-covid norms, but we ain't gonna get there if vaccinidiots and other assorted members of the FreeDumb caucus continue to spout their nonsense.   And practice that nonsense.   And teach others to do so as well.  And I am tired of people, especially, sadly, many if not most of my coreligionists, actively criticize me and treat me as though there is actually something wrong with ME for wanting to vax and mask.   I am also fighting deep hostility to people who get sick because they will not vax-- there is a guy in my church who just spent a month in the hospital and almost died, because he did not want to have a vax 'rewrite his DNA', and he was not shy about preaching his nonsense to others in church.   And his son, 20yo, is apparently now all set to give him his hard-to-get coveted apprencticeship in dad's HVAC union, because he still won't vax, and dad, despite all he's gone through, will not alter his thinking, such as it is.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on September 30, 2021, 02:46:37 AM
I would certainly wear a mask outdoors in New York if the sidewalks were as crowded as they sometimes get. I am remembering that woman — was it in Australia? — who caught Delta merely by walking through a patch of air where an infected person had walked several moments before. They could trace the chain of transmission by the specific characteristics of that strain. When I'm cheek-by-jowl with other pedestrians, I'm staying masked.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on September 30, 2021, 06:18:09 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 29, 2021, 10:39:50 PM
I get that my response was intense, but I was responding to FishProf's 'bite me'.

And I do get that masking is not as necessary everywhere at all times, and some places and times, it is not necessary more or less at all, but professors are teachers, and must set examples.   College kids will, like it or not, be much more ready to ignore masking reqs whenever they see their teachers not masking, even if the particular situation does not really require masking-- adolescents are not always knowledgeable about the nuances of situation, etc.

And I must cycle back to my general point-- I want to see this country go back as much as possible to pre-covid norms, but we ain't gonna get there if vaccinidiots and other assorted members of the FreeDumb caucus continue to spout their nonsense.   And practice that nonsense.   And teach others to do so as well.  And I am tired of people, especially, sadly, many if not most of my coreligionists, actively criticize me and treat me as though there is actually something wrong with ME for wanting to vax and mask.   I am also fighting deep hostility to people who get sick because they will not vax-- there is a guy in my church who just spent a month in the hospital and almost died, because he did not want to have a vax 'rewrite his DNA', and he was not shy about preaching his nonsense to others in church.   And his son, 20yo, is apparently now all set to give him his hard-to-get coveted apprencticeship in dad's HVAC union, because he still won't vax, and dad, despite all he's gone through, will not alter his thinking, such as it is.

I understand your frustrations, but the point is that there is NOT an outdoor mask requirement almost anyplace, because the science clearly shows outdoors is low risk, so no one is "setting a bad example" or "not following the rules" by taking their mask off outdoors. So your attack on FishProf was unwarranted, though FishProf also didn't respond very maturely to you.

And in my experience, our students are perfectly capable of following both the rules and nuance, much more so than many so called adults. For example, I'm allowed to take my mask off while teaching and then put it back on when interacting more closely with students, whereas the students are required to always keep their masks on in the classroom-- there have been zero problems with this. (Campus is 97% fully vaccinated, transmission is low). Not saying this is true of all undergraduates everywhere, but I get tired of people disparaging young adults, when in many cases they are more sensible and responsible than their elders.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on September 30, 2021, 08:02:25 AM
Quote from: Puget on September 30, 2021, 06:18:09 AM
though FishProf also didn't respond very maturely to you.

Noted.  Kay, I  apologize.

I'm going to assume good faith here and seek some clarity.  My campus is:
1) Fully Vaccinated (not literally, but practically),
2) requires masks indoors, but not outdoors (both explicitly stated and posted)
3) Students are required to test weekly (vaccinated faculty can (and I do) but aren't required,
4) Student's have to be able to show they are cleared to attend class (Coverified app - I show them mine, they show me theirs)
5) We are a state institution and are following local, state, and federal guidelines;
6) I assiduously follow and enforce the campus policies;

Given the above, what is your objection?

(Aside: I am as baffled by the stance of your co-religionists' (both large and small scale) resistance to doing something so clearly beneficial to everyone.  You have my sympathy to be on the receiving end of that madness).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 30, 2021, 08:47:54 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on September 30, 2021, 02:46:37 AM
I would certainly wear a mask outdoors in New York if the sidewalks were as crowded as they sometimes get. I am remembering that woman — was it in Australia? — who caught Delta merely by walking through a patch of air where an infected person had walked several moments before. They could trace the chain of transmission by the specific characteristics of that strain. When I'm cheek-by-jowl with other pedestrians, I'm staying masked.

There have been hundreds of millions of people who have caught covid around the world, so you would expect a few of them have gotten it in some weird and unlikely ways. But, it doesn't mean its very likely.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 30, 2021, 08:55:48 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 29, 2021, 10:39:50 PM
I get that my response was intense, but I was responding to FishProf's 'bite me'.

And I do get that masking is not as necessary everywhere at all times, and some places and times, it is not necessary more or less at all, but professors are teachers, and must set examples.   College kids will, like it or not, be much more ready to ignore masking reqs whenever they see their teachers not masking, even if the particular situation does not really require masking-- adolescents are not always knowledgeable about the nuances of situation, etc.



I really find this reasoning strange. It would be like if you were saying that it's required for people to wear helmets when they are on bikes or motorcycles so instructors should wear helmets when they walk on campus, because it is important to set an example.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on September 30, 2021, 08:59:38 AM
Quote from: Caracal on September 30, 2021, 08:47:54 AM
There have been hundreds of millions of people who have caught covid around the world, so you would expect a few of them have gotten it in some weird and unlikely ways. But, it doesn't mean its very likely.

I don't think we know how likely it is. The six-feet guidance was established for a reason, though — you're at less risk when you're at a distance than when you're shoulder-to-shoulder with someone. Since I have underlying conditions that put me at grave risk if I were to catch it, I aim to err on the side of caution. Your choices may differ. Everyone who errs on the side of incaution, though, does increase the chances that it will be transmitted yet again, and that more variants will develop. How much you care about that may also differ.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on September 30, 2021, 09:17:02 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on September 30, 2021, 08:59:38 AM
Quote from: Caracal on September 30, 2021, 08:47:54 AM
There have been hundreds of millions of people who have caught covid around the world, so you would expect a few of them have gotten it in some weird and unlikely ways. But, it doesn't mean its very likely.

I don't think we know how likely it is. The six-feet guidance was established for a reason, though — you're at less risk when you're at a distance than when you're shoulder-to-shoulder with someone. Since I have underlying conditions that put me at grave risk if I were to catch it, I aim to err on the side of caution. Your choices may differ. Everyone who errs on the side of incaution, though, does increase the chances that it will be transmitted yet again, and that more variants will develop. How much you care about that may also differ.

Well pretty unlikely since it appears there's really only one case documented with that kind of contact. Obviously, there are probably more, but its a tiny, tiny percentage of transmission which means the effect on the larger burden and variants and all the rest is basically non existent.

I'm not suggesting there's anything irrational or wrong about masking in more crowded outdoor settings, and we all have to make our own risk calculations. However, I think it is counterproductive to suggest that there's a moral duty to wear masks in outdoor settings (with the possible exception of something very crowded where people are going to be in close proximity for an extended period, like a concert or sporting event) Masks have costs. It can be easy to discount those costs because they aren't dangerous to health, but they are uncomfortable for many of us, and they do make social interaction more difficult and less enjoyable for lots of people. People are more likely to continue wearing masks when they need to if it feels sustainable, and part of making it sustainable is designating the outdoors as a place where you don't need to wear masks, and aren't going to get dirty looks for people for not doing so.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on October 01, 2021, 12:08:16 AM
I get that some campuses are better at vax and mask compliance than others.   My point still stands, however-- professors should set an example for students, and there is no reason to equivocate on such an example by taking one's mask off walking across campus.

I wish I could explain why it is white evangelicals seem to have fallen down the vaccinidiocy rabbit trail, but it is complex.   Factors include: 1) tribal identity politics/ virtue signalling, 2) generalized hostility to science, 3) extreme anti-intellectualism and hostility to education, 4) hideous effects of bad propagnanda consumption.   There are likely others, such as 5) silly notions of 'freedom' (my own pastor said he is pro-vaccination, but also 'pro-liberty', and we are praying regularly for church members who are set to lose their jobs, willingly, in support of their 'liberty'.   

Damn, this is pissing me off.   The 'turn your brains off' caucus in evangelicalism....uggghhh
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on October 01, 2021, 12:19:07 AM
Awright, I will fess up.  The pandemic has been really rough on me wrt my church.   Being the only one masking, supporting Biden, trying to deal with the ignorance and active promotion of bad, ahem, well... and then this guy, after preaching nonsense about vaxxes, goes and gets himself a covid case that the ICU nurse tells his wife that he was only one of two people during the pandemic at that hospital, who had it so bad, who survived.   And then after this, his badly homeschooled 20yo son is prepared to give up his future to not vax, and his mom asks for prayer that he will be able to keep his job without vaxxing.   And his father is apparently ok with all of this.  And whenever the man is actually healthy enough to return to church services, I will have to figure out how to hide the overt resentment I feel for the man....
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on October 01, 2021, 04:50:01 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 01, 2021, 12:08:16 AM
I get that some campuses are better at vax and mask compliance than others.   My point still stands, however-- professors should set an example for students, and there is no reason to equivocate on such an example by taking one's mask off walking across campus.



What example are we supposed to be setting? If there was a mask policy for all public spaces, outdoor or indoor, as there was last year at many places, I would agree that professors should make sure to follow the rules even in situations where the risk seems very low.

I also would agree that instructors should model best practices to students, even if we aren't talking about actual rule breaking. I wear a well fitting mask over my nose and mouth while I teach and anytime I'm indoors anywhere but my office with the door closed. I don't take down my mask during class to drink water. If I do need a sip of water, I excuse myself and go out to the hall to drink it.

However, I'm not doing these things to set an example. I'm doing them to lower the chance that I will get infected with Covid or transmit it to others. If I am setting an example, the only example I want to set is to follow the spirit of the rules in a way that makes things safer for everyone. Outdoors, masks aren't required, and the chances of transmission are very low, so I can't see how I'm sending a harmful message by taking my mask off. If a student sees me yank my mask off the moment I get out of the building, but always sees me with the mask on inside, I think I'm actually setting a good example-that masks are important inside, even if they sometimes uncomfortable and inconvenient.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on October 01, 2021, 06:44:18 AM
Quote from: Caracal on October 01, 2021, 04:50:01 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 01, 2021, 12:08:16 AM
I get that some campuses are better at vax and mask compliance than others.   My point still stands, however-- professors should set an example for students, and there is no reason to equivocate on such an example by taking one's mask off walking across campus.



What example are we supposed to be setting? If there was a mask policy for all public spaces, outdoor or indoor, as there was last year at many places, I would agree that professors should make sure to follow the rules even in situations where the risk seems very low.

I also would agree that instructors should model best practices to students, even if we aren't talking about actual rule breaking. I wear a well fitting mask over my nose and mouth while I teach and anytime I'm indoors anywhere but my office with the door closed. I don't take down my mask during class to drink water. If I do need a sip of water, I excuse myself and go out to the hall to drink it.

However, I'm not doing these things to set an example. I'm doing them to lower the chance that I will get infected with Covid or transmit it to others. If I am setting an example, the only example I want to set is to follow the spirit of the rules in a way that makes things safer for everyone. Outdoors, masks aren't required, and the chances of transmission are very low, so I can't see how I'm sending a harmful message by taking my mask off. If a student sees me yank my mask off the moment I get out of the building, but always sees me with the mask on inside, I think I'm actually setting a good example-that masks are important inside, even if they sometimes uncomfortable and inconvenient.

Right-- the example we want to set for students is that we follow the science and the rules. Wearing a mask outdoors when they are not required by the rules and not supported as necessary by the science doesn't achieve that.

It also gives ammunition to to the very people you are rightly frustrated with, who have been saying see, even with vaccines these crazy liberals are still wearing masks outdoors, so the vaccines clearly don't work. The message should be: vaccines and indoor masking when community transmission is high work, and people can otherwise go about their lives normally-- look at the ultra low case rates on campuses doing these things!

Now, you may find me wearing a mask outdoors sometimes come winter, because it turns out a thick cloth mask is great for keeping your face warm.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on October 01, 2021, 06:52:10 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 01, 2021, 12:08:16 AM
My point still stands, however-- professors should set an example for students, and there is no reason to equivocate on such an example by taking one's mask off walking across campus.

I agree with your first sentence.

I reject your definition of what satisfies the requirement to be a good example. 

Deciding that it is my (generic) duty to go beyond the rules because you (generic) think the rules should be more stringent leads to the argument that we should maximize caution.   That means full lockdown again and that is not currently supported by the data. 

There is a balance, an optimization of caution and freedom (in the ability to get on with our lives, not the 'Murica sense) that needs to be sought.  That is what we all do, everyday, for the myriad risks we take just by going out into the world./
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on October 01, 2021, 02:34:07 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 01, 2021, 12:19:07 AM
Awright, I will fess up.  The pandemic has been really rough on me wrt my church.   Being the only one masking, supporting Biden, trying to deal with the ignorance and active promotion of bad, ahem, well... and then this guy, after preaching nonsense about vaxxes, goes and gets himself a covid case that the ICU nurse tells his wife that he was only one of two people during the pandemic at that hospital, who had it so bad, who survived.   And then after this, his badly homeschooled 20yo son is prepared to give up his future to not vax, and his mom asks for prayer that he will be able to keep his job without vaxxing.   And his father is apparently ok with all of this.  And whenever the man is actually healthy enough to return to church services, I will have to figure out how to hide the overt resentment I feel for the man....

Being a member of this congregation signifies endorsement of the views of the pastor.

Personally, I am not going to attend a religious service in which the message preached is contrary to both science and the tenets of the religion, just as I am not going to be the patient of a physician or nurse who I know is unwilling to protect others against a highly contagious disease by getting vaccinated.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on October 01, 2021, 07:49:55 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 01, 2021, 12:19:07 AM
Awright, I will fess up.  The pandemic has been really rough on me wrt my church.   Being the only one masking, supporting Biden, trying to deal with the ignorance and active promotion of bad, ahem, well... and then this guy, after preaching nonsense about vaxxes, goes and gets himself a covid case that the ICU nurse tells his wife that he was only one of two people during the pandemic at that hospital, who had it so bad, who survived.   And then after this, his badly homeschooled 20yo son is prepared to give up his future to not vax, and his mom asks for prayer that he will be able to keep his job without vaxxing.   And his father is apparently ok with all of this.  And whenever the man is actually healthy enough to return to church services, I will have to figure out how to hide the overt resentment I feel for the man....

You are starting to sound like someone in an abusive relationship who just can't/won't leave.  If your faith is that important to you, surely there is another church where you continue to worship while still feeling like a valued member of a faith community.  Best of luck to you sir.  This does not sound healthy for you - physically, mentally, or spiritually.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on October 02, 2021, 12:37:11 AM
I am not sure I understand why it is that my remaining in this church necessarily means I agree 100% with the views of the pastor (which I can assure ye that I do not)?   IOW, is it ever really the case that the average adult congregant in any religious group, save the overtly culty and some highly doctrinaire-thinking controlled sects, really will believe 100% of the teachings of the leadership?   I get that when/if the leadership comes to espouse views that are patently unacceptable, and said member elects to stay, he is essentially either consenting to that bad teaching, or at least saying it does not matter, but that is a high bar to hit, and mostly, disagreements with the leadership do not rise to that level, to the effect that the member has to evaluate whether he should depart, whether he can be a part of the congregation without agreeing with said errors, indeed whether his ongoing presence would potentially have a salutary effect and may even lead to a reform of the teaching.

That said, I do confess that I have had several ulterior motives that mitigate against the thought of departing, however much I am not proud of this.   And, that as a low-income, single guy with no real support network around here, I am perhaps more tethered to it that I might be were this not  the case.  And it is also true, something that perhaps people here who are not committed evangelicals, or indeed not committed members of any spiritual tradition, do not realize that committed religionists actually have set belief systems that strongly mitigate against joining a congregation/ denomination, that is not really committed to such views, at least not substantively.

Still, I gotta speak up wrt the pandemic and associated issues.   It is driving me to distraction.   And greatly magnifying just how 'alien' I really am in this congregation (and, sadly, increasingly also within American evangelicaldom in the age of Drumpf, which is nothing like it was say 30 years ago).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on October 02, 2021, 07:19:20 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on October 01, 2021, 07:49:55 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 01, 2021, 12:19:07 AM
Awright, I will fess up.  The pandemic has been really rough on me wrt my church.   Being the only one masking, supporting Biden, trying to deal with the ignorance and active promotion of bad, ahem, well... and then this guy, after preaching nonsense about vaxxes, goes and gets himself a covid case that the ICU nurse tells his wife that he was only one of two people during the pandemic at that hospital, who had it so bad, who survived.   And then after this, his badly homeschooled 20yo son is prepared to give up his future to not vax, and his mom asks for prayer that he will be able to keep his job without vaxxing.   And his father is apparently ok with all of this.  And whenever the man is actually healthy enough to return to church services, I will have to figure out how to hide the overt resentment I feel for the man....

You are starting to sound like someone in an abusive relationship who just can't/won't leave.  If your faith is that important to you, surely there is another church where you continue to worship while still feeling like a valued member of a faith community.  Best of luck to you sir.  This does not sound healthy for you - physically, mentally, or spiritually.

It really does sound like you may need to find another church with a better pastor.  Most ministers are NOT like what this guy sounds like.

If you feel that you are called to stay with that particular congregation, in an effort to be salt and light there, I can respect that.  In that case, though, you need to armor yourself up with prayer.  Prayer for that minister, that he can have the grace and humility to see where he is in error, and prayer for yourself, that you can relate to him and to others in the church with grace and love.

There was a time, some years back, when our church's pastor and I were each going through some really bad times, for different reasons.  I seriously considered jumping ship for another congregation.  But I stayed, and did a lot of praying for myself and for the pastor.  Over the years we've both gotten a lot better.  God has shown us each things that we needed to deal with during that time.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on October 03, 2021, 11:58:15 AM
A relationship with a church has some similarities to a relationship within a marriage. Love is involved, as well as trust, wisdom, stewardship of ones abilities, and the ways one will share ones gifts within the congregation.

One also has to experience nurture, healthy interactions, and good challenges to ones spiritual life as well as ones overall growth.

I've stayed in congregations where it looked like issues could be worked out, and I've left those where I tried and they didn't get worked out--and I could see that they weren't going to, and that our gifts and needs just didn't seem well-matched.

I've left places where I liked/benefitted from a minister's preaching but found the congregation impossibly confrontative or unkind. I've also stayed too long in places where I kept thinking it would turn a corner and work out, and finally had to accept that it wasn't going to.

When I leave a place, I don't always know where I'm going next, I might have to visit a few places several times before I find one that works. I'm not saying I make a habit of doing this, but I have become more comfortable with seeing church membership as a fluid at some points, and a solid at others.

In some cases, it felt like I was moulting--I needed to be at that place in that time to learn some given aspect of the life of faith, and then needed to move on--a bit like a hermit crab, maybe, as well--if the shell gets too tight, it's time to find a new one.

In that way, of course, it's not like a marriage, because in a marriage, hopefully, the other person is committed enough to the relationship to be willing to grow with you, or accept your changing needs as you grow with them. The process of getting a church to grow or change is more like turning a battleship, and if the leadership doesn't see a need for the change or value the individual who does (properly called prophets, perhaps) you do have to shake the dust from your feet and move on (a process that also has good Scriptural warrant).

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on October 03, 2021, 09:06:29 PM
Random points and honest self-assessments:

1) shaking the dust off of one's feet is scriptural, per se, but it does require that the church essentially be apostate.   That would clearly be the context of what Jesus is saying there.

2)Church membership is a vitally important biblical context, at least *in my understanding*.   Mamselle and I have had discussions about her differing view here.   I can respect her, and her view, but cannot share it.   When one covenants with a church body, one cannot leave for trite reasons, or disagreements on secondary issues, etc.  I cannot, further, ever see that it would be scriptural to take a 'fluid' approach to church attendance.

3) I am trying to work up the courage to share with the pastor some of the things wrt covid and similar cultural issues, that I have shared here.  I am not there yet, but hope to get that way before more silliness and destructiveness ensues (though today was essentially a good day).   Of course, it is also true that, to the pastor's credit, he does try to approach some of these people in a pastoral way, not wanting to confront them before they are ready (though he is rather weak on confrontation/ discipline).

4)I am lousy at visiting places, and as a single guy, whenever I do do that, I have to be doing it alone, which, esp at my age, is really hard (and perhaps harder in that, whenever I visit an evangelical church, I often have to deal with well-meaning people, who do not know me from Adam, trying to evangelize me, which I do not really like dealing with, esp if I do have differing views from what I might find preached at the church in question, which might lead the locals to view me as unsaved). 

5) I realllllyyyyy do not like this, but I am dependent on this community.   It is a real factor in my ongoing decision to stay, and to not be as strident in my responses to things there.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 04, 2021, 04:59:42 PM
More of my students are getting sick. :( I swear, at this rate, the entire class will have it.

Currently, I'm teaching in an area where the vaccine isn't exactly popular and I think that the majority of my students who tested positive were not vaccinated.

One of my students told me that she snuck her friend out to get vaccinated since the friend's parents don't believe in the vaccine.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on October 04, 2021, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 04, 2021, 04:59:42 PM
More of my students are getting sick. :( I swear, at this rate, the entire class will have it.

Currently, I'm teaching in an area where the vaccine isn't exactly popular and I think that the majority of my students who tested positive were not vaccinated.

One of my students told me that she snuck her friend out to get vaccinated since the friend's parents don't believe in the vaccine.

Sorry to hear that! Meanwhile with 97% of the campus vaccinated we've had only 1 case in the past seven days, out of more than 8000 tests of more than 5500 people. Vaccines work. They work really well when there are no big pockets of unvaccinated people.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 04, 2021, 06:33:36 PM
Quote from: Puget on October 04, 2021, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 04, 2021, 04:59:42 PM
More of my students are getting sick. :( I swear, at this rate, the entire class will have it.

Currently, I'm teaching in an area where the vaccine isn't exactly popular and I think that the majority of my students who tested positive were not vaccinated.

One of my students told me that she snuck her friend out to get vaccinated since the friend's parents don't believe in the vaccine.

Sorry to hear that! Meanwhile with 97% of the campus vaccinated we've had only 1 case in the past seven days, out of more than 8000 tests of more than 5500 people. Vaccines work. They work really well when there are no big pockets of unvaccinated people.

I bring masks to class every day, but they're kind of crappy (school provided them). I bought some 'better' masks (KN95s- could be fake, but who knows? CDC says that about 60% are fakes.) and I plan to distribute them in class tomorrow. Maybe I can get some of them to actually wear these masks.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on October 04, 2021, 06:48:34 PM
Quote from: Puget on October 04, 2021, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 04, 2021, 04:59:42 PM
More of my students are getting sick. :( I swear, at this rate, the entire class will have it.

Currently, I'm teaching in an area where the vaccine isn't exactly popular and I think that the majority of my students who tested positive were not vaccinated.

One of my students told me that she snuck her friend out to get vaccinated since the friend's parents don't believe in the vaccine.

Sorry to hear that! Meanwhile with 97% of the campus vaccinated we've had only 1 case in the past seven days, out of more than 8000 tests of more than 5500 people. Vaccines work. They work really well when there are no big pockets of unvaccinated people.


Likewise, we have about 95% vaccination rate for students (I think 97% for faculty and staff) and have had three confirmed cases in a university with 20-30k students.  They are pretty convincing numbers.  I feel horrible for everyone out there working in anti-vax regions like that.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: FishProf on October 05, 2021, 06:51:06 AM
I had a positive case in class this week.  I KNOW the student was vaccinated, and that the campus is masked up indoors, and all the appropriate precautions were taken.  I teach about this and know what breakthrough cases actually mean....

....but my first reaction was "Is [student] REALLY vaccinated?"

Bad FishProf.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: lightning on October 05, 2021, 10:45:24 AM
Quote from: FishProf on October 05, 2021, 06:51:06 AM
I had a positive case in class this week.  I KNOW the student was vaccinated, and that the campus is masked up indoors, and all the appropriate precautions were taken.  I teach about this and know what breakthrough cases actually mean....

....but my first reaction was "Is [student] REALLY vaccinated?"

Bad FishProf.

So, you have actually seen their vaccination card, and if you did you are sure that the card was legit?

If you check into the emergency room or urgent care, they are not allowed to turn you away. So if you can't pay, they can't turn you away. If you are not vaccinated, they can't turn you away. IOW, people can lie about their status when they are checking themselves in. This totally screws up the case numbers.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on October 05, 2021, 10:57:44 AM
Quote from: lightning on October 05, 2021, 10:45:24 AM
Quote from: FishProf on October 05, 2021, 06:51:06 AM
I had a positive case in class this week.  I KNOW the student was vaccinated, and that the campus is masked up indoors, and all the appropriate precautions were taken.  I teach about this and know what breakthrough cases actually mean....

....but my first reaction was "Is [student] REALLY vaccinated?"

Bad FishProf.

So, you have actually seen their vaccination card, and if you did you are sure that the card was legit?

If you check into the emergency room or urgent care, they are not allowed to turn you away. So if you can't pay, they can't turn you away. If you are not vaccinated, they can't turn you away. IOW, people can lie about their status when they are checking themselves in. This totally screws up the case numbers.

Meh, not sure there's need for that much suspicion. Vaccinated people are less likely to test positive, but it does happen and it does seem like immunity against infection does wane while protection against getting really sick remains strong. In the long run we are all going to have to get used to the idea that vaccinated people will sometimes get covid and it isn't that big a deal.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: sinenomine on October 05, 2021, 11:00:50 AM
Quote from: Caracal on October 05, 2021, 10:57:44 AM
Quote from: lightning on October 05, 2021, 10:45:24 AM
Quote from: FishProf on October 05, 2021, 06:51:06 AM
I had a positive case in class this week.  I KNOW the student was vaccinated, and that the campus is masked up indoors, and all the appropriate precautions were taken.  I teach about this and know what breakthrough cases actually mean....

....but my first reaction was "Is [student] REALLY vaccinated?"

Bad FishProf.

So, you have actually seen their vaccination card, and if you did you are sure that the card was legit?

If you check into the emergency room or urgent care, they are not allowed to turn you away. So if you can't pay, they can't turn you away. If you are not vaccinated, they can't turn you away. IOW, people can lie about their status when they are checking themselves in. This totally screws up the case numbers.

Meh, not sure there's need for that much suspicion. Vaccinated people are less likely to test positive, but it does happen and it does seem like immunity against infection does wane while protection against getting really sick remains strong. In the long run we are all going to have to get used to the idea that vaccinated people will sometimes get covid and it isn't that big a deal.

Seven people I know, all of whom are vaccinated, have tested positive in the last few weeks.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Beebee on October 05, 2021, 11:12:51 AM
Quote from: sinenomine on October 05, 2021, 11:00:50 AM
Quote from: Caracal on October 05, 2021, 10:57:44 AM
Quote from: lightning on October 05, 2021, 10:45:24 AM
Quote from: FishProf on October 05, 2021, 06:51:06 AM
I had a positive case in class this week.  I KNOW the student was vaccinated, and that the campus is masked up indoors, and all the appropriate precautions were taken.  I teach about this and know what breakthrough cases actually mean....

....but my first reaction was "Is [student] REALLY vaccinated?"

Bad FishProf.

So, you have actually seen their vaccination card, and if you did you are sure that the card was legit?

If you check into the emergency room or urgent care, they are not allowed to turn you away. So if you can't pay, they can't turn you away. If you are not vaccinated, they can't turn you away. IOW, people can lie about their status when they are checking themselves in. This totally screws up the case numbers.

Meh, not sure there's need for that much suspicion. Vaccinated people are less likely to test positive, but it does happen and it does seem like immunity against infection does wane while protection against getting really sick remains strong. In the long run we are all going to have to get used to the idea that vaccinated people will sometimes get covid and it isn't that big a deal.

Seven people I know, all of whom are vaccinated, have tested positive in the last few weeks.

Yeah, our university requires vaccination (you upload your vaccine card and they actually check somehow - even for vendors and contractors), masks indoors, and weekly testing. We are in a highly-vaxxed state in a town with an indoor mask mandate but also a high population density, and the campus is basically embedded in the city. The weekly testing has been showing students and a couple faculty test positive, so it happens. I know at least a couple students who I know got their shots once they came on campus (I suspect they could not due to family, from where they came from, plus international students) so they should count as fully vaxxed by now, which I hope might help. I had two test positive in my class of 30; both were asymptomatic, just had to isolate. I had a few others contact me saying they were close contacts and will quarantine until testing even though they were not required to (they test every 2-3 days for 2 weeks, but officially they are allowed to come to class. This is more stringent than CDC guidelines for close contacts who are vaccinated). Nobody else in class tested positive in either case, so I can say, not classroom transmission. Students of course socialize, they eat indoors. No way around that. And honestly that's going to happen if you regularly test everyone; it's unlikely they have close unmasked contacts with high-risk individuals while living with vaccinated college classmates. At some point, when everyone has some sort of immunity (vaccines possibly with boosters as needed, infection, or both), hopefully we will reach a point where it will have to become not a big deal. I don't know when that is.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on October 05, 2021, 11:13:38 AM
Quote from: lightning on October 05, 2021, 10:45:24 AM
Quote from: FishProf on October 05, 2021, 06:51:06 AM
I had a positive case in class this week.  I KNOW the student was vaccinated, and that the campus is masked up indoors, and all the appropriate precautions were taken.  I teach about this and know what breakthrough cases actually mean....

....but my first reaction was "Is [student] REALLY vaccinated?"

Bad FishProf.

So, you have actually seen their vaccination card, and if you did you are sure that the card was legit?

If you check into the emergency room or urgent care, they are not allowed to turn you away. So if you can't pay, they can't turn you away. If you are not vaccinated, they can't turn you away. IOW, people can lie about their status when they are checking themselves in. This totally screws up the case numbers.

It's not true that ER's can't turn people away.

It varies by state but ER's are not a "home is where they have to take you in when you show up there" kind of place.

That's another urban (maybe also rural) myth that wants correcting.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on October 05, 2021, 11:26:11 AM
Quote from: mamselle on October 05, 2021, 11:13:38 AM
Quote from: lightning on October 05, 2021, 10:45:24 AM
Quote from: FishProf on October 05, 2021, 06:51:06 AM
I had a positive case in class this week.  I KNOW the student was vaccinated, and that the campus is masked up indoors, and all the appropriate precautions were taken.  I teach about this and know what breakthrough cases actually mean....

....but my first reaction was "Is [student] REALLY vaccinated?"

Bad FishProf.

So, you have actually seen their vaccination card, and if you did you are sure that the card was legit?

If you check into the emergency room or urgent care, they are not allowed to turn you away. So if you can't pay, they can't turn you away. If you are not vaccinated, they can't turn you away. IOW, people can lie about their status when they are checking themselves in. This totally screws up the case numbers.

It's not true that ER's can't turn people away.

It varies by state but ER's are not a "home is where they have to take you in when you show up there" kind of place.

That's another urban (maybe also rural) myth that wants correcting.

M.

They have to treat people who are suffering some sort of emergency until the person is stabilized. If it isn't an emergency, its a different situation.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on October 05, 2021, 11:31:02 AM
Correct. No hospital participating in Medicare [virtually all of them] can turn away emergency patients [EMTALA, 1986]. The patient must be stabilized. A bill will be sent, but payment is not a condition for treatment.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on October 05, 2021, 12:07:31 PM
Quote from: Beebee on October 05, 2021, 11:12:51 AM
Quote from: sinenomine on October 05, 2021, 11:00:50 AM
Quote from: Caracal on October 05, 2021, 10:57:44 AM
Quote from: lightning on October 05, 2021, 10:45:24 AM
Quote from: FishProf on October 05, 2021, 06:51:06 AM
I had a positive case in class this week.  I KNOW the student was vaccinated, and that the campus is masked up indoors, and all the appropriate precautions were taken.  I teach about this and know what breakthrough cases actually mean....

....but my first reaction was "Is [student] REALLY vaccinated?"

Bad FishProf.

So, you have actually seen their vaccination card, and if you did you are sure that the card was legit?

If you check into the emergency room or urgent care, they are not allowed to turn you away. So if you can't pay, they can't turn you away. If you are not vaccinated, they can't turn you away. IOW, people can lie about their status when they are checking themselves in. This totally screws up the case numbers.

Meh, not sure there's need for that much suspicion. Vaccinated people are less likely to test positive, but it does happen and it does seem like immunity against infection does wane while protection against getting really sick remains strong. In the long run we are all going to have to get used to the idea that vaccinated people will sometimes get covid and it isn't that big a deal.

Seven people I know, all of whom are vaccinated, have tested positive in the last few weeks.

Yeah, our university requires vaccination (you upload your vaccine card and they actually check somehow - even for vendors and contractors), masks indoors, and weekly testing. We are in a highly-vaxxed state in a town with an indoor mask mandate but also a high population density, and the campus is basically embedded in the city. The weekly testing has been showing students and a couple faculty test positive, so it happens. I know at least a couple students who I know got their shots once they came on campus (I suspect they could not due to family, from where they came from, plus international students) so they should count as fully vaxxed by now, which I hope might help. I had two test positive in my class of 30; both were asymptomatic, just had to isolate. I had a few others contact me saying they were close contacts and will quarantine until testing even though they were not required to (they test every 2-3 days for 2 weeks, but officially they are allowed to come to class. This is more stringent than CDC guidelines for close contacts who are vaccinated). Nobody else in class tested positive in either case, so I can say, not classroom transmission. Students of course socialize, they eat indoors. No way around that. And honestly that's going to happen if you regularly test everyone; it's unlikely they have close unmasked contacts with high-risk individuals while living with vaccinated college classmates. At some point, when everyone has some sort of immunity (vaccines possibly with boosters as needed, infection, or both), hopefully we will reach a point where it will have to become not a big deal. I don't know when that is.

Every time I have some extremely mild symptom and take a rapid test, (all negative thus far) I don't worry about getting really sick while I'm waiting for the results. What I start worrying about is having to take the kid out of daycare for two weeks, having to reorganize my classes and having to let our small group of friends who come to our house know that I tested positive and they should get tests and their kids might need to stay out of school.

Eventually, it does seem like COVID will become mostly like a cold and there won't be a need for anything more than staying home when you aren't feeling well. I don't really have a good sense of what the medium term is going to look like. Hopefully, as things improve, we can move towards something less disruptive.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on October 05, 2021, 05:24:35 PM
How common is it, for most Americans in most walks of life, nowadays, to actually take a covid test?   I have worked a retail job throughout the pandemic, for instance, but have never taken one, nor even been asked to do so... I am of course fully vaxxed since early May.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on October 05, 2021, 05:34:29 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 05, 2021, 05:24:35 PM
How common is it, for most Americans in most walks of life, nowadays, to actually take a covid test?   I have worked a retail job throughout the pandemic, for instance, but have never taken one, nor even been asked to do so... I am of course fully vaxxed since early May.

An at home test was approved by the FDA only the other day, whereas in Europe, they're a dime a dozen, literally.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on October 05, 2021, 06:37:49 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 05, 2021, 05:24:35 PM
How common is it, for most Americans in most walks of life, nowadays, to actually take a covid test?   I have worked a retail job throughout the pandemic, for instance, but have never taken one, nor even been asked to do so... I am of course fully vaxxed since early May.

Huge numbers of tests. I've had two in the last two months. Each time I needed to take one (because I had a fever and needed to know whether to stay home from an in-person gathering), I searched multiple test sites in my county, and I always had to wait 2-3 days before a test slot was open. Both times it was open only in a very rural pharmacy miles from where I live. And every time I go to the pharmacy in the next town, there is a long line of cars waiting for tests. Prescriptions have a week-long wait because so many pharmacy workers have been diverted to doing COVID tests. A friend who is a nurse in Philadelphia tells me that for the same reason, non-urgent prescriptions have a month-long wait time in her area. So — millions of people are taking tests.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: rac on October 05, 2021, 07:40:10 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on October 05, 2021, 06:37:49 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 05, 2021, 05:24:35 PM
How common is it, for most Americans in most walks of life, nowadays, to actually take a covid test?   I have worked a retail job throughout the pandemic, for instance, but have never taken one, nor even been asked to do so... I am of course fully vaxxed since early May.

Huge numbers of tests. I've had two in the last two months. Each time I needed to take one (because I had a fever and needed to know whether to stay home from an in-person gathering), I searched multiple test sites in my county, and I always had to wait 2-3 days before a test slot was open. Both times it was open only in a very rural pharmacy miles from where I live. And every time I go to the pharmacy in the next town, there is a long line of cars waiting for tests. Prescriptions have a week-long wait because so many pharmacy workers have been diverted to doing COVID tests. A friend who is a nurse in Philadelphia tells me that for the same reason, non-urgent prescriptions have a month-long wait time in her area. So — millions of people are taking tests.

I hope that anybody with a fever, covid or not, stays home from in-person gatherings lol...And that wait for prescriptions is awful!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on October 05, 2021, 07:43:01 PM
Well, the US testing rate is not great. See here https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-tests-per-thousand-people-smoothed-7-day?tab=chart&country=GBR~USA~ITA~FRA~DEU~SWE (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-tests-per-thousand-people-smoothed-7-day?tab=chart&country=GBR~USA~ITA~FRA~DEU~SWE)

The European countries are understated in the graph, for the collection of at-home test results cannot be covering everybody.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on October 06, 2021, 07:15:44 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 05, 2021, 05:24:35 PM
How common is it, for most Americans in most walks of life, nowadays, to actually take a covid test?   I have worked a retail job throughout the pandemic, for instance, but have never taken one, nor even been asked to do so... I am of course fully vaxxed since early May.

I've been tested several times.  It's free and pretty easy to get in my area: pharmacies, clinics, kiosk downtown near the transit center, campus, etc.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on October 06, 2021, 07:27:44 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on October 06, 2021, 07:15:44 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 05, 2021, 05:24:35 PM
How common is it, for most Americans in most walks of life, nowadays, to actually take a covid test?   I have worked a retail job throughout the pandemic, for instance, but have never taken one, nor even been asked to do so... I am of course fully vaxxed since early May.

I've been tested several times.  It's free and pretty easy to get in my area: pharmacies, clinics, kiosk downtown near the transit center, campus, etc.

Yeah, I think since the beginning of the pandemic I've had 3vPCR tests. Kid has had at least 4. We are also doing the at home tests pretty frequently for very, very minor symptoms. I get a slight sore throat and congestion fairly often. If it was a full blown cold I would stay home and probably go get a PCR test, but the at home tests are really useful when one of us has something that is probably nothing at all. Apparently, they are quite good at detecting Covid if you do have symptoms. I think they aren't nearly as useful if you don't have symptoms but are visiting family or something.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on October 06, 2021, 10:33:18 AM
I know somebody who got a breakthrough COVID infection.  He got two false negatives before a third test returned a positive.  I don't know how often this sort of thing happens.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pink_ on October 07, 2021, 01:36:00 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 05, 2021, 05:24:35 PM
How common is it, for most Americans in most walks of life, nowadays, to actually take a covid test?   I have worked a retail job throughout the pandemic, for instance, but have never taken one, nor even been asked to do so... I am of course fully vaxxed since early May.

I get tested weekly. It's free and very easy on my campus. I live in a state with low vaccination rates and a LOT of anti-maskers, and I've been teaching in-person (with Kn95 masks) since August 2020. I'm fully-vaxxed myself , but I know multiple people who have gotten breakthrough infections, and I just don't want to be responsible for making someone else sick. I also really like my cardio-vascular system as it is.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on October 07, 2021, 02:11:51 PM
Everyone on our campus is tested once a week (faculty and staff) or twice a week (students), in addition to a vaccine requirement (we are at 97%). Vaccinate-test-trace + mask when conditions warrant and you can have very low cases on a campus (only 2 in the past 2 weeks here).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on October 14, 2021, 05:30:10 PM
Interestingly to me, if you measure anti-Covid performance by confirmed deaths per million, a very striking pattern emerges globally: The basket cases are all places with heavy Western influence, but not the West itself - namely, Latin America and Eastern Europe. On the other hand, basically everywhere between India and the Pacific has done well.
The basket-case regions are not uniform, of course - Serbia actually has done fairly well (a world-class vaccination scheme sure helped), Bosnia has shown yet again its four levels of government are good only for creating jobs for politicians. Cuba has done pretty well, Mexico and Brazil have fared catastrophically.
Wealth has made pretty much no difference, neither has geography (Taiwan is an island, Britain is an island) or population density (Hong Kong and Macao have been successes). Authoritarian governments have been largely successful, but so have democratic Taiwan and S. Korea - Taiwan even managed negative excess deaths. In Latin America, both Costa Rica, the region's oldest democracy, and totalitarian Cuba did relatively well. It's way too simplistic to say that culture is the answer, because some culturally similar places performed very differently, like Sweden vs. Norway, but there are some clear patterns nevertheless - Confucianist cultures performed well, Latin cultures mostly performed badly.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on October 15, 2021, 06:27:30 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on October 14, 2021, 05:30:10 PM
Interestingly to me, if you measure anti-Covid performance by confirmed deaths per million, a very striking pattern emerges globally: The basket cases are all places with heavy Western influence, but not the West itself - namely, Latin America and Eastern Europe. On the other hand, basically everywhere between India and the Pacific has done well.
The basket-case regions are not uniform, of course - Serbia actually has done fairly well (a world-class vaccination scheme sure helped), Bosnia has shown yet again its four levels of government are good only for creating jobs for politicians. Cuba has done pretty well, Mexico and Brazil have fared catastrophically.
Wealth has made pretty much no difference, neither has geography (Taiwan is an island, Britain is an island) or population density (Hong Kong and Macao have been successes). Authoritarian governments have been largely successful, but so have democratic Taiwan and S. Korea - Taiwan even managed negative excess deaths. In Latin America, both Costa Rica, the region's oldest democracy, and totalitarian Cuba did relatively well. It's way too simplistic to say that culture is the answer, because some culturally similar places performed very differently, like Sweden vs. Norway, but there are some clear patterns nevertheless - Confucianist cultures performed well, Latin cultures mostly performed badly.

Not the west itself?  The USA, Belgium, the UK, and Italy are all in the basket case category IMO.  I mean Brazil is at about 2800/million, and the US is around 2200/million.  That is not an extreme difference...especially given the resources they had at their disposal.



Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 15, 2021, 08:28:29 AM
Quote from: Puget on October 07, 2021, 02:11:51 PM
Everyone on our campus is tested once a week (faculty and staff) or twice a week (students), in addition to a vaccine requirement (we are at 97%). Vaccinate-test-trace + mask when conditions warrant and you can have very low cases on a campus (only 2 in the past 2 weeks here).

God, I wish we had half of your requirements.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on October 15, 2021, 10:26:50 AM
New data interactive from the CDC, infections and deaths by vaccine status: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status
No surprise but striking visuals-- this is now truly a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on October 15, 2021, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on October 15, 2021, 06:27:30 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on October 14, 2021, 05:30:10 PM
Interestingly to me, if you measure anti-Covid performance by confirmed deaths per million, a very striking pattern emerges globally: The basket cases are all places with heavy Western influence, but not the West itself - namely, Latin America and Eastern Europe. On the other hand, basically everywhere between India and the Pacific has done well.
The basket-case regions are not uniform, of course - Serbia actually has done fairly well (a world-class vaccination scheme sure helped), Bosnia has shown yet again its four levels of government are good only for creating jobs for politicians. Cuba has done pretty well, Mexico and Brazil have fared catastrophically.
Wealth has made pretty much no difference, neither has geography (Taiwan is an island, Britain is an island) or population density (Hong Kong and Macao have been successes). Authoritarian governments have been largely successful, but so have democratic Taiwan and S. Korea - Taiwan even managed negative excess deaths. In Latin America, both Costa Rica, the region's oldest democracy, and totalitarian Cuba did relatively well. It's way too simplistic to say that culture is the answer, because some culturally similar places performed very differently, like Sweden vs. Norway, but there are some clear patterns nevertheless - Confucianist cultures performed well, Latin cultures mostly performed badly.

Not the west itself?  The USA, Belgium, the UK, and Italy are all in the basket case category IMO.  I mean Brazil is at about 2800/million, and the US is around 2200/million.  That is not an extreme difference...especially given the resources they had at their disposal.

It depends where you set the cutoff - unless you count San Marino and Gibraltar, everywhere doing worse than the US (by official deaths per million) right now is either in Eastern Europe (esp. the former Yugoslavia) or Latin America (Peru has the worst official numbers on the planet). Also, there's the issue that these are confirmed deaths, and therefore affected by testing rates - Mexico has done very little testing for example. At least anecdotally, things were far more dire in parts of Latin America than in the US at some points - corpses rotting in the streets in Guayaquil, Mexico City running out of hospital beds, etc. If you consider it relative to wealth then, yes the US, Belgium and Italy (esp. Lombardy) have done spectacularly badly, as have Switzerland and Sweden, while subsaharan Africa, Cuba and Vietnam have done spectacularly well.

Quote from: Puget on October 15, 2021, 10:26:50 AM
...this is now truly a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

Yep.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on October 15, 2021, 01:59:49 PM
We've lost 48 lives to COVID in our county thus far.  A pretty terrible toll for a county with circa 20,000 people.  But by no means proportionately the most severe in the state.  A neighboring county with about 60% of our population has close to the same death toll, and a much higher ratio of fatalities per cases.  Looks like the much better level of treatment available in our local hospital has had a meaningful effect.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on October 15, 2021, 02:21:47 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on October 15, 2021, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on October 15, 2021, 06:27:30 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on October 14, 2021, 05:30:10 PM
Interestingly to me, if you measure anti-Covid performance by confirmed deaths per million, a very striking pattern emerges globally: The basket cases are all places with heavy Western influence, but not the West itself - namely, Latin America and Eastern Europe. On the other hand, basically everywhere between India and the Pacific has done well.
The basket-case regions are not uniform, of course - Serbia actually has done fairly well (a world-class vaccination scheme sure helped), Bosnia has shown yet again its four levels of government are good only for creating jobs for politicians. Cuba has done pretty well, Mexico and Brazil have fared catastrophically.
Wealth has made pretty much no difference, neither has geography (Taiwan is an island, Britain is an island) or population density (Hong Kong and Macao have been successes). Authoritarian governments have been largely successful, but so have democratic Taiwan and S. Korea - Taiwan even managed negative excess deaths. In Latin America, both Costa Rica, the region's oldest democracy, and totalitarian Cuba did relatively well. It's way too simplistic to say that culture is the answer, because some culturally similar places performed very differently, like Sweden vs. Norway, but there are some clear patterns nevertheless - Confucianist cultures performed well, Latin cultures mostly performed badly.

Not the west itself?  The USA, Belgium, the UK, and Italy are all in the basket case category IMO.  I mean Brazil is at about 2800/million, and the US is around 2200/million.  That is not an extreme difference...especially given the resources they had at their disposal.

It depends where you set the cutoff - unless you count San Marino and Gibraltar, everywhere doing worse than the US (by official deaths per million) right now is either in Eastern Europe (esp. the former Yugoslavia) or Latin America (Peru has the worst official numbers on the planet). Also, there's the issue that these are confirmed deaths, and therefore affected by testing rates - Mexico has done very little testing for example. At least anecdotally, things were far more dire in parts of Latin America than in the US at some points - corpses rotting in the streets in Guayaquil, Mexico City running out of hospital beds, etc. If you consider it relative to wealth then, yes the US, Belgium and Italy (esp. Lombardy) have done spectacularly badly, as have Switzerland and Sweden, while subsaharan Africa, Cuba and Vietnam have done spectacularly well.

Quote from: Puget on October 15, 2021, 10:26:50 AM
...this is now truly a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

Yep.

Still, the USA is in the top 10 percentile, meaning they have fared worse than over 90% of the world.  You are right that the ones that have done worse than the US are primarily from the regions you mention, but there are many other countries from those same regions doing better than the USA.   

IMO, the USA is very much in the basket-case section of the room.  I am in Canada.  You guys are about 3X higher than us per capita and we are not doing particularly well, just kind of average.  The difference between us (average) and the US is much greater than the US and Brazil... 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: pgher on October 15, 2021, 06:02:30 PM
Quote from: apl68 on October 15, 2021, 01:59:49 PM
We've lost 48 lives to COVID in our county thus far.  A pretty terrible toll for a county with circa 20,000 people.  But by no means proportionately the most severe in the state.  A neighboring county with about 60% of our population has close to the same death toll, and a much higher ratio of fatalities per cases.  Looks like the much better level of treatment available in our local hospital has had a meaningful effect.

Our county is similar in population (maybe 30k, not sure) with 160+ deaths. Not good. A friend's husband has long hauler syndrome, so the pain and suffering will just continue for who knows how long.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on October 16, 2021, 10:03:23 AM
Found out that one of the largest hospitals in the state is no longer intubating Covid patients who are in their 80s, because no Covid patient in that age bracket who was intubated has survived. Since the data show that it's useless, it's been crossed off the list of options.

I wonder if this is the situation nationally.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on October 22, 2021, 01:13:34 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 15, 2021, 08:28:29 AM
Quote from: Puget on October 07, 2021, 02:11:51 PM
Everyone on our campus is tested once a week (faculty and staff) or twice a week (students), in addition to a vaccine requirement (we are at 97%). Vaccinate-test-trace + mask when conditions warrant and you can have very low cases on a campus (only 2 in the past 2 weeks here).

God, I wish we had half of your requirements.

If it makes you feel better, I wish we had requirements. We're gearing up to do hybrid teaching with no vaccine mandate, no testing requirements and no free (to the testee) testing. There will probably be a mask mandate, but I doubt it will be strictly enforced. You see, anything stricter could hurt someone's feelings.

Quote from: Kron3007 on October 15, 2021, 02:21:47 PM
Still, the USA is in the top 10 percentile, meaning they have fared worse than over 90% of the world.  You are right that the ones that have done worse than the US are primarily from the regions you mention, but there are many other countries from those same regions doing better than the USA.   

IMO, the USA is very much in the basket-case section of the room... 

I admit when I think "basket case" in this context I think "doing even worse than the US." The US' relative position is definitely getting worse, not coincidentally just as US vaccination rates begin to lag behind more and more places.

Interestingly, the US and Russia have a lot in common in this context:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58998366

It's not mentioned in the link, but I know Russia tried bribery with little success (like the US) and then mandates  (big fines for the unvaccinated elderly and folks in certain jobs in some regions). What I've heard through the grapevine is that many unvaxxed Russians (unlike Americans) say they would take a Western vaccine like Pfizer but don't trust Russian vaccines and (like Americans) some are refusing to vax in opposition to the incumbent government.
The graph of percentage of people vaccinated is particularly interesting - Australia, with one of the slowest starts in the developed world, has now overtaken the US; Israel, with the fastest start in the entire world, now lags behind much of the West, Spain leads the West, China has much higher vaccination rates than the US (and than much of the West), and the UAE is first of all the countries shown. I'm not sure if the UAE have a higher rate than Cuba (not included), which probably has the highest vaccination rate in the Americas.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on October 22, 2021, 08:03:07 PM
I guess it is all about perspective. 

According to my source, Cuba is around 85% first dose (still well below the UAE), but only 60.6 with their second.  Weird that your source dosn't show it, is this a US thing? 

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Aster on October 23, 2021, 05:22:35 AM
My campus had an outbreak last week. At least one student became seriously ill and has been in the hospital for days now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on October 23, 2021, 10:35:09 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on October 22, 2021, 08:03:07 PM
I guess it is all about perspective. 

According to my source, Cuba is around 85% first dose (still well below the UAE), but only 60.6 with their second.  Weird that your source dosn't show it, is this a US thing?

Sorry, the Cuba info is also from the BBC but it's a different article - the one I'm thinking of showed doses per 100 inhabitants. Something I forgot while writing my previous post (my bad) was that one Cuban vaccination scheme is a three-dose scheme - two doses of Soberana 02 and one if Soberana Plus.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on October 24, 2021, 04:56:00 PM
Here´s some more info from a week ago:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51235105

As measured by doses per 100 inhabitants, Cuba is second only to Gibraltar (with the clarification that one of the Cuban schemes is a three-dose scheme), no Western country or territory other than Gibraltar makes the top 8, Cambodia beats almost the entire Western world, the US is below Argentina and Panama, Russia is below hyper-corrupt Paraguay and not much better than narco-state Honduras, and North Korea and Eritrea have officially applied zero doses per hundred inhabitants, below even Haiti at 0.8.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on October 25, 2021, 04:38:51 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on October 24, 2021, 04:56:00 PM
Here´s some more info from a week ago:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51235105

As measured by doses per 100 inhabitants, Cuba is second only to Gibraltar (with the clarification that one of the Cuban schemes is a three-dose scheme), no Western country or territory other than Gibraltar makes the top 8, Cambodia beats almost the entire Western world, the US is below Argentina and Panama, Russia is below hyper-corrupt Paraguay and not much better than narco-state Honduras, and North Korea and Eritrea have officially applied zero doses per hundred inhabitants, below even Haiti at 0.8.

I'd suggest that the term "western world" doesn't have much meaning, nor do discussions about what countries are more or less "corrupt." In the 19th century US, essentially all government jobs (Federal, State, Municipal) were distributed according to patronage and the reason you wanted one of these jobs was mostly for personal gain. We would consider this rank and illegal corruption, but it had some merits as a political system.

Oddly, the system now is basically that the lower level jobs are occupied by career civil servants, but the higher you get the more jobs are filled by allies of the person in charge. Ambassadors are a particularly weird example. The ambassador to Mongolia is usually a career diplomat, but ambassadors to fancy places that are also us allies tend to be people with no particular qualifications at all, other than than that they were big donors to the president's campaign. If you're the ambassador to France, usually that means you're an important donor who also happens to speak pretty good French. There are things you can defend about the system. The UK government might actually prefer having an ambassador who has a relationship with the president outside of State Department channels and can get them on the phone. But that's the point. describing a state as corrupt doesn't actually tell us that much.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on October 25, 2021, 09:41:12 AM
Quote from: Puget on October 15, 2021, 10:26:50 AM
New data interactive from the CDC, infections and deaths by vaccine status: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status
No surprise but striking visuals-- this is now truly a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

This data isn't as good as it looks. In many locales, "Covid-19 hospitalizations" are counts of people who are hospitalized who test positive for Covid, not people hospitalized because of Covid. The best measure is excess deaths. I would love to see a chart on excess deaths of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on October 25, 2021, 10:28:15 AM
Quote from: spork on October 25, 2021, 09:41:12 AM
Quote from: Puget on October 15, 2021, 10:26:50 AM
New data interactive from the CDC, infections and deaths by vaccine status: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status
No surprise but striking visuals-- this is now truly a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

This data isn't as good as it looks. In many locales, "Covid-19 hospitalizations" are counts of people who are hospitalized who test positive for Covid, not people hospitalized because of Covid. The best measure is excess deaths. I would love to see a chart on excess deaths of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.

I'm not sure what hospitalizations have to do with it-- the data are for cases and deaths, not hospitalizations. Cases are positive antigen tests, not hospitalizations.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on October 25, 2021, 10:56:39 AM
Quote from: Caracal on October 25, 2021, 04:38:51 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on October 24, 2021, 04:56:00 PM
Here´s some more info from a week ago:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51235105

As measured by doses per 100 inhabitants, Cuba is second only to Gibraltar (with the clarification that one of the Cuban schemes is a three-dose scheme), no Western country or territory other than Gibraltar makes the top 8, Cambodia beats almost the entire Western world, the US is below Argentina and Panama, Russia is below hyper-corrupt Paraguay and not much better than narco-state Honduras, and North Korea and Eritrea have officially applied zero doses per hundred inhabitants, below even Haiti at 0.8.

I'd suggest that the term "western world" doesn't have much meaning, nor do discussions about what countries are more or less "corrupt." In the 19th century US, essentially all government jobs (Federal, State, Municipal) were distributed according to patronage and the reason you wanted one of these jobs was mostly for personal gain. We would consider this rank and illegal corruption, but it had some merits as a political system.

Oddly, the system now is basically that the lower level jobs are occupied by career civil servants, but the higher you get the more jobs are filled by allies of the person in charge. Ambassadors are a particularly weird example. The ambassador to Mongolia is usually a career diplomat, but ambassadors to fancy places that are also us allies tend to be people with no particular qualifications at all, other than than that they were big donors to the president's campaign. If you're the ambassador to France, usually that means you're an important donor who also happens to speak pretty good French. There are things you can defend about the system. The UK government might actually prefer having an ambassador who has a relationship with the president outside of State Department channels and can get them on the phone. But that's the point. describing a state as corrupt doesn't actually tell us that much.

What I mean by Western World is Western and Central Europe, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
By corruption I don't mean appointing as Ambassador someone who isn't a career diplomat but has real political clout in the appointing country. I mean stuff like places in which the outcome of a criminal trial depends on whether the plaintiff or the defendant can give the judge the bigger wad of cash, where you can just "escape" a maximum security prison because you gave a big enough bribe, where the cops are basically goons selling off their services to the higher bidder, the military is just another drugs cartel, etc. A good example is how the Afghan ex-government had tons of soldiers that existed only in the payroll and were just the means by which the higher-ups pocketed the money - the son of the former Afghan Defense Minister recently bought himself a mansion costing over $20 million, I wonder how much of that came from ghosts on the payroll.
For a quantitative comparison of corruption, Transparency International publishes an index. Paraguay is consistently near the bottom, and has been on at least one occasion the worst performer in the Western Hemisphere, so "hyper-corrupt" has an objective basis.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on October 25, 2021, 11:05:15 AM
Quote from: spork on October 25, 2021, 09:41:12 AM
Quote from: Puget on October 15, 2021, 10:26:50 AM
New data interactive from the CDC, infections and deaths by vaccine status: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status
No surprise but striking visuals-- this is now truly a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

This data isn't as good as it looks. In many locales, "Covid-19 hospitalizations" are counts of people who are hospitalized who test positive for Covid, not people hospitalized because of Covid. The best measure is excess deaths. I would love to see a chart on excess deaths of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.

Yeah, not sure what that would add. If anything, I would say the underlying numbers are better than the top line numbers.

For example, an unvaccinated person 30-49 is 28 times more likely to die of covid than a vaccinated person. Even for 65-79 years olds, you are 16 times more likely to die of covid if you are unvaccinated. The overall numbers get a bit skewed because covid is still pretty dangerous for vaccinated people over 80.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on October 25, 2021, 03:51:49 PM
Quote from: Puget on October 25, 2021, 10:28:15 AM
Quote from: spork on October 25, 2021, 09:41:12 AM
Quote from: Puget on October 15, 2021, 10:26:50 AM
New data interactive from the CDC, infections and deaths by vaccine status: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status
No surprise but striking visuals-- this is now truly a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

This data isn't as good as it looks. In many locales, "Covid-19 hospitalizations" are counts of people who are hospitalized who test positive for Covid, not people hospitalized because of Covid. The best measure is excess deaths. I would love to see a chart on excess deaths of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.

I'm not sure what hospitalizations have to do with it-- the data are for cases and deaths, not hospitalizations. Cases are positive antigen tests, not hospitalizations.

For some reason clicking on that link took me to a page with hospitalization data. I see the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated death rates now.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on November 09, 2021, 06:21:35 PM
I just signed up for a booster next Friday, just after my six month mark. I decided I qualified as an "educator" even though during the initial role out my state explicitly excluded higher ed from this category and made us wait until it was opened to all adults. But now there is no shortage, Pfizer has asked the FDA to expand booster eligibility to all adults and they probably will, and the data are pretty clear on waning immunity, so I feel justified in going ahead with it. I'll be visiting my 93 year old grandmother over winter break and will take all the extra protection for her I can (she is already boosted of course, but more immunity around her is good).

As a bonus, I realized I could get a tetanus booster at the same time, which my mom has been bugging me about neglecting. (Already got flu shot at work).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: kaysixteen on November 09, 2021, 08:09:15 PM
Just got my Moderna booster today, qualified as a 50+ dude with various med conditions (and also as an essential worker).   Harmless, and just makes me even less sympathetic to vaccinidiots.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: sinenomine on November 11, 2021, 03:28:17 AM
I'm getting my booster today — I listed myself as a teacher for the first two, so I got the alert that I was qualified. I'm hearing that some folks are getting similar after effects to the second shot, while others don't feel them as severely. Time will tell for me...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on November 11, 2021, 03:57:41 AM
Quote from: sinenomine on November 11, 2021, 03:28:17 AM
I'm getting my booster today — I listed myself as a teacher for the first two, so I got the alert that I was qualified. I'm hearing that some folks are getting similar after effects to the second shot, while others don't feel them as severely. Time will tell for me...

I had a much milder version of the second shot. 101 degree fever instead of 103. Felt a little cold, instead of uncontrollable shivering. Did seem to feel cruddy and tired for longer, but perhaps that was just because I really didn't want to deal with rearranging four classes and just pushed through.  I got Moderna the first time and the Pfizer booster so who knows.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on November 11, 2021, 04:37:09 AM
Quote from: sinenomine on November 11, 2021, 03:28:17 AM
I'm getting my booster today — I listed myself as a teacher for the first two, so I got the alert that I was qualified. I'm hearing that some folks are getting similar after effects to the second shot, while others don't feel them as severely. Time will tell for me...

My parents had the same reactions to their boosters last week as they did to the original.  Dad had no reaction, Mom felt sick for a day or two.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: EdnaMode on November 11, 2021, 05:25:55 AM
I had the Pfizer booster last week and had no side effects except for a sore spot on my arm the next day.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Harlow2 on November 11, 2021, 05:40:04 AM
Had the Moderna booster 2 and a half weeks ago on the 8 month anniversary of the second shot. Woke up next day really tired and a bit achy but by lunch was pretty much back to normal. This was a milder reaction than back in February and no itch rash this time. Flu shot a week later actually left my arm with a bit more soreness, but nothing of real interest
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on November 11, 2021, 04:03:01 PM
I had a Moderna booster a couple of weeks ago, following 2 Pfizer shots, and had a sore arm for about a day and a half (nothing at all with the first 2 shots).  I feel lucky (and happy to have some token reaction just to remind me that my immune system is still there).

A friend of mine is feeling achy and fluey after her booster.

Good luck, sinenomine!
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 18, 2021, 07:05:27 PM
I got my booster today. I decided to mix and get Pfizer after having two doses of Moderna earlier in the year.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on November 20, 2021, 06:09:34 PM
I got my Moderna booster last Sunday, then promptly felt like crap on a cracker all week--a slight fever Sunday night but then gone. I felt seriously rotten on Monday, Tuesday, and then Wednesday (when I had to take off work to ferry ALHS to Alma Mater Hospital for a relatively scary procedure).  I had to drive to work Tuesday and Thursday, plus teach remotely Monday and Friday as well. Let's just say the students did NOT receive outstanding pedagogical product those days.

By Friday morning, I was feeling somewhat better, enough so that I cared if I might actually live through it. I also first developed a huge (golf-ball sized black bruise) at the needle site. Hopefully this will be as sick as I get this winter; we've all had our flu shots already.

ALHS and my BFF colleague keep telling me, "It's better than getting COVID."  Yes, it is--IF I don't get COVID.  That BFF has had three students with confirmed cases within this past week--ALL after both doses of the vaccine. 

Sigh.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 20, 2021, 10:13:26 PM
Quote from: AmLitHist on November 20, 2021, 06:09:34 PM
I got my Moderna booster last Sunday, then promptly felt like crap on a cracker all week--a slight fever Sunday night but then gone. I felt seriously rotten on Monday, Tuesday, and then Wednesday (when I had to take off work to ferry ALHS to Alma Mater Hospital for a relatively scary procedure).  I had to drive to work Tuesday and Thursday, plus teach remotely Monday and Friday as well. Let's just say the students did NOT receive outstanding pedagogical product those days.

By Friday morning, I was feeling somewhat better, enough so that I cared if I might actually live through it. I also first developed a huge (golf-ball sized black bruise) at the needle site. Hopefully this will be as sick as I get this winter; we've all had our flu shots already.

ALHS and my BFF colleague keep telling me, "It's better than getting COVID."  Yes, it is--IF I don't get COVID.  That BFF has had three students with confirmed cases within this past week--ALL after both doses of the vaccine. 

Sigh.

I'm sorry you're dealing with all of that, especially when ALHS has so many issues that you're the go-to for as well.

How long until the end of the semester, did you say???

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on November 22, 2021, 07:57:13 AM
Quote from: AmLitHist on November 20, 2021, 06:09:34 PM
I got my Moderna booster last Sunday, then promptly felt like crap on a cracker all week--a slight fever Sunday night but then gone. I felt seriously rotten on Monday, Tuesday, and then Wednesday (when I had to take off work to ferry ALHS to Alma Mater Hospital for a relatively scary procedure).  I had to drive to work Tuesday and Thursday, plus teach remotely Monday and Friday as well. Let's just say the students did NOT receive outstanding pedagogical product those days.

By Friday morning, I was feeling somewhat better, enough so that I cared if I might actually live through it. I also first developed a huge (golf-ball sized black bruise) at the needle site. Hopefully this will be as sick as I get this winter; we've all had our flu shots already.

ALHS and my BFF colleague keep telling me, "It's better than getting COVID."  Yes, it is--IF I don't get COVID.  That BFF has had three students with confirmed cases within this past week--ALL after both doses of the vaccine. 

Sigh.

Well, booster does seem to make it much less likely you're going to get infected in the short term. And breakthrough infections happen, but the odds of ending up in the hospital are much, much lower if you're fully vaccinated.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: OneMoreYear on November 22, 2021, 09:00:40 AM
We just got the apologetic email from HR stating that because of the government mandate (totally not the university's fault, you see, it's the government overreach), all employees must either get vaccinated or get an exemption.  As it's really easy to get religious exemptions here, my guess is that this mandate will not actually improve vaccinations rates, and anyone who wants to refuse the vaccine will be able to do so. But, let the gnashing of teeth begin. Oh, also, we are still not going to be doing coordinated testing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 22, 2021, 02:48:05 PM
Quote from: AmLitHist on November 20, 2021, 06:09:34 PM
I got my Moderna booster last Sunday, then promptly felt like crap on a cracker all week--a slight fever Sunday night but then gone. I felt seriously rotten on Monday, Tuesday, and then Wednesday (when I had to take off work to ferry ALHS to Alma Mater Hospital for a relatively scary procedure).  I had to drive to work Tuesday and Thursday, plus teach remotely Monday and Friday as well. Let's just say the students did NOT receive outstanding pedagogical product those days.

By Friday morning, I was feeling somewhat better, enough so that I cared if I might actually live through it. I also first developed a huge (golf-ball sized black bruise) at the needle site. Hopefully this will be as sick as I get this winter; we've all had our flu shots already.

ALHS and my BFF colleague keep telling me, "It's better than getting COVID."  Yes, it is--IF I don't get COVID.  That BFF has had three students with confirmed cases within this past week--ALL after both doses of the vaccine. 

Sigh.

Sorry to hear it ALH. SO got his booster yesterday and he's feeling crappy too- body aches, fatigue, etc. I got mine on Thursday and haven't noticed any side effects and I'm very thankful for it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on November 22, 2021, 02:53:03 PM
I got my booster Friday after work, had some aches and chills and a bit of fatigue for 24 hours, but nowhere near as bad as after my second dose and then was totally back to normal. Most people I know similarly have had much milder or no real side effects from boosters. Personally, I'm glad for some side effects because that way I know I'm mounting a good immune response (they say it doesn't mean you're not if you don't have side effects, but I'd rather know I am).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ab_grp on November 22, 2021, 04:05:29 PM
My husband and I each got our Pfizer boosters and flu shots and basically had the same side effects as for dose two.  He also had hopes to have more of a reaction but just felt tired again.  I had a mild fever again that lasted a bit longer this time (two nights) with the chills, skin sensitivity, and fatigue. With the second and third doses, I got a rash on my arm.  Last time it was more diffuse and didn't itch too much.  This time it's a big itchy red baseball-sized rash with a very itchy, swollen (golf-ball sized?) center.  Luckily, that's almost gone, but it's been nearly a week.  There was also some lymph node activity, which I don't think happened last time.  Overall, not too bad despite the description, and nothing really unexpected.  We just planned to take it easy and do the same kinds of self-care that worked with dose two, and we rode it out.  I am still dealing with a bit of fatigue, though.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on November 23, 2021, 08:22:34 AM
Planning to get my COVID booster in the next week ahead of a visit from a stubbornly unvaccinated parent. I've just seen that my state will let me get the same vaccine (Pfizer) or mix and match. Does anyone know of any research on the effectiveness of keeping the same vaccine vs. switching to another brand?

AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on November 23, 2021, 08:49:20 AM
Quote from: AvidReader on November 23, 2021, 08:22:34 AM
Planning to get my COVID booster in the next week ahead of a visit from a stubbornly unvaccinated parent. I've just seen that my state will let me get the same vaccine (Pfizer) or mix and match. Does anyone know of any research on the effectiveness of keeping the same vaccine vs. switching to another brand?

AR.

There is some very limited research on antibody levels, but none I know of on actual efficacy. The limited antibody research may *hint* at some benefit of mixing, but it was done with the full Moderna dose and the booster is a half-dose, so I wouldn't put too much stock in that. What is clear is that for folks who had J&J, they are much better off with an mRNA booster. Between the two mRNA vaccines though, I think there isn't really a basis to say. I ended up mixing (Pfizer primary, Moderna booster) just because that's what the local CVS had.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anselm on November 23, 2021, 09:15:17 AM
I suppose that you can find a local street preacher to sign a vaxx exemption form.

What I want to know is what might happen with the current rise in daily infections.  Is there any chance that we might see schools shutting down again and restrictions on international travel?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on November 23, 2021, 10:38:47 AM
Quote from: AvidReader on November 23, 2021, 08:22:34 AM
Planning to get my COVID booster in the next week ahead of a visit from a stubbornly unvaccinated parent. I've just seen that my state will let me get the same vaccine (Pfizer) or mix and match. Does anyone know of any research on the effectiveness of keeping the same vaccine vs. switching to another brand?

AR.

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/what-booster-should-i-get-data-from
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on November 23, 2021, 11:01:12 AM
Quote from: Anselm on November 23, 2021, 09:15:17 AM
I suppose that you can find a local street preacher to sign a vaxx exemption form.

What I want to know is what might happen with the current rise in daily infections.  Is there any chance that we might see schools shutting down again and restrictions on international travel?

I doubt it. Schools stayed open when infections were pretty bad in September. Vaccinations do make a big difference in terms of the risk calculations. Presumably, vaccinated students who are exposed wan't have to quarantine unless they show symptoms.

At some point what are you supposed to do?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: ab_grp on November 23, 2021, 11:08:22 AM
Several school districts have shut back down in my area due to the rising infection rates. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on November 23, 2021, 12:13:57 PM
Thanks, Puget and secundem_artem! I am grateful for the feedback & the link.

AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AmLitHist on November 23, 2021, 01:57:19 PM
K-12 in the city (and many in the county) where I work shut down for this whole holiday week because numbers are rising.

I know was complaining about my booster, and I shouldn't have.  I'm very glad to have gotten it, and I'm fortunate to have a light F2F teaching schedule for the remaining couple of weeks and for the spring.  I'm hoping all of us--IRL and those friends here on the Fora--will remain safe and healthy!

ALHS got his booster Sunday and feels fine.  I'm glad.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anon1787 on November 26, 2021, 03:00:07 PM
With news about the Omicron variant and spikes with the Delta variant even among the highly vaccinated, does your university have good contingency plans in the event of the situation getting much worse? At my university requiring proof of vaccination (but not a booster as of yet) and masks plus a lot of hope seem to be the extent of the plan.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 26, 2021, 05:04:11 PM
Another variant, 'nu' is also popping up...I'll have to re-find the article that just mentioned it..

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: AvidReader on November 27, 2021, 10:42:35 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 26, 2021, 05:04:11 PM
Another variant, 'nu' is also popping up...I'll have to re-find the article that just mentioned it..

M.

Apparently "nu" is now Omicron:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-variants-alphabet/fact-check-who-skipped-letters-of-greek-alphabet-while-naming-covid-19-variant-omicron-idUSL1N2SI07K

AR.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on November 27, 2021, 12:09:08 PM
Quote from: AvidReader on November 27, 2021, 10:42:35 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 26, 2021, 05:04:11 PM
Another variant, 'nu' is also popping up...I'll have to re-find the article that just mentioned it..

M.

Apparently "nu" is now Omicron:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-variants-alphabet/fact-check-who-skipped-letters-of-greek-alphabet-while-naming-covid-19-variant-omicron-idUSL1N2SI07K

AR.

Ah.

Got it.

Thanks.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on December 22, 2021, 04:23:44 AM
Our elected officials' response to the rapid spread of Omicron: What, me worry?

According to the mayor and the governor, the solution lies in tests and more tests.

Headline in NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/22/nyregion/omicron-nyc-spread.html:
Quote
Omicron Is Spreading Fast. Can New York Do More to Slow It Down?

Quote
Mayor Bill de Blasio says he doesn't want to impose new government restrictions. But some health experts say more must be done.

In an email blast, the governor reprimands people for being concerned:

Quote
But let me be clear: This is not March of 2020. We have defenses. We have people across the State of New York who are doing the right thing.

Is masking in public places required? Yes, What happens if you don't feel like wearing a mask? Nothing.
Shows are being canceled because of the performers and other employees testing positive. Some restaurants have had to close for the same reason.

The mayor-elect, to his credit, has canceled his inauguration ceremony.

It's going to be an interesting couple of weeks with people riding in fully-packed subways, and going to stores and other public places without a worry in the world.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 22, 2021, 09:58:58 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on December 22, 2021, 04:23:44 AM
Our elected officials' response to the rapid spread of Omicron: What, me worry?

According to the mayor and the governor, the solution lies in tests and more tests.

Headline in NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/22/nyregion/omicron-nyc-spread.html:
Quote
Omicron Is Spreading Fast. Can New York Do More to Slow It Down?

Quote
Mayor Bill de Blasio says he doesn't want to impose new government restrictions. But some health experts say more must be done.

In an email blast, the governor reprimands people for being concerned:

Quote
But let me be clear: This is not March of 2020. We have defenses. We have people across the State of New York who are doing the right thing.

Is masking in public places required? Yes, What happens if you don't feel like wearing a mask? Nothing.
Shows are being canceled because of the performers and other employees testing positive. Some restaurants have had to close for the same reason.

The mayor-elect, to his credit, has canceled his inauguration ceremony.

It's going to be an interesting couple of weeks with people riding in fully-packed subways, and going to stores and other public places without a worry in the world.

January is going to be brutal.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mahagonny on December 23, 2021, 04:31:30 AM
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on December 23, 2021, 12:47:20 PM
Not a great headline for DC today:
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2021/12/dc-now-one-of-the-biggest-covid-hot-spots-in-the-us/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2021/12/dc-now-one-of-the-biggest-covid-hot-spots-in-the-us/)
Posted on WTOP online 12/23/21
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on December 23, 2021, 07:58:50 PM
I am living in an area where everyone seems to be operating according to business as usual. We have terrible COVID rates and the hospitals are at crisis point, but you wouldn't know it from daily life. I venture out rarely and always with an N95 mask, as I have some health vulnerabilities and co-morbidities, and I'm old enough to be in one of the risky categories anyway. But on my Facebook page I see lots of people older than I am at local high school basketball games, at Christmas parties, at big family dinners in restaurants, and having vigorous social lives, without a mask in sight.

I have not seen a single person wear a mask in a store, even the employees, except for the employees at Best Buy. Someone obviously mandated that they should, and most of them were even wearing their mask over both mouth and nose. Only surgical masks, though, which are sub-optimum compared to N95s. At all other stores, it's like 2019.

I also know of some local families who have had family members die of COVID, with some harrowing suffering along the way. Those people are staying indoors and keeping away from the other folks. But their stories apparently have little effect. 

When I talk to the non-masking, non-vaccinated folks — outdoors — they say things like, "My immune system's always been strong, no reason it should fail me now!" I point out the death rates. They counter that the death rates are exaggerated "so the companies can make money." And that the vaccines are too new to trust. And that "when it's your time to go, you're gonna go, no matter what."

Meanwhile obviously it's the time to go for many residents of the area, because the death rates were already high and now they're climbing. So far most of the local people I know have been lucky. But with Omicron, I have a feeling some of them will cease to be lucky. It's like being present at a slow-motion train wreck. It's really depressing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on December 24, 2021, 06:22:10 AM
Hegemony notes:Meanwhile obviously it's the time to go for many residents of the area, because the death rates were already high and now they're climbing. So far most of the local people I know have been lucky. But with Omicron, I have a feeling some of them will cease to be lucky. It's like being present at a slow-motion train wreck. It's really depressing.

Even if Omicron causes fewer serious cases and a lower death rate, it does seem to be having a very negative effect on health care facilities, and is apparently hitting children particularly hard.  Yes, it's discouraging and depressing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 24, 2021, 09:35:06 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on December 24, 2021, 06:22:10 AM
Hegemony notes:Meanwhile obviously it's the time to go for many residents of the area, because the death rates were already high and now they're climbing. So far most of the local people I know have been lucky. But with Omicron, I have a feeling some of them will cease to be lucky. It's like being present at a slow-motion train wreck. It's really depressing.

Even if Omicron causes fewer serious cases and a lower death rate, it does seem to be having a very negative effect on health care facilities, and is apparently hitting children particularly hard.  Yes, it's discouraging and depressing.


Obviously it depends on the numbers, but when you trade a dip in severity for a rise in virulence it can end up being a bit of a wash.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mleok on December 25, 2021, 09:55:49 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 24, 2021, 09:35:06 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on December 24, 2021, 06:22:10 AM
Hegemony notes:Meanwhile obviously it's the time to go for many residents of the area, because the death rates were already high and now they're climbing. So far most of the local people I know have been lucky. But with Omicron, I have a feeling some of them will cease to be lucky. It's like being present at a slow-motion train wreck. It's really depressing.

Even if Omicron causes fewer serious cases and a lower death rate, it does seem to be having a very negative effect on health care facilities, and is apparently hitting children particularly hard.  Yes, it's discouraging and depressing.

Obviously it depends on the numbers, but when you trade a dip in severity for a rise in virulence it can end up being a bit of a wash.

Except that the severity is a multiplicative factor, whereas the transmissibility enters in an exponential. The only cold comfort is that the virus may end up burning through susceptible hosts very quickly.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on December 29, 2021, 01:32:29 PM
Some friends of mine have now come down with it.  They had been trying very hard not to catch it and had (I think) been vaccinated.  The whole family of four is now in quarantine.  Fortunately they all seem to be having minor cases of it.  They were out in the back yard working when I went by their house to check on them over lunch.  I wore my mask, and they stood way back.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on December 29, 2021, 07:47:57 PM
From WTOP Radio: DC Public Schools students and faculty have to test negative before going back next Wednesday:
https://wtop.com/dc/2021/12/all-dcps-students-staff-need-to-show-proof-of-negative-covid-test-before-return-to-school/ (https://wtop.com/dc/2021/12/all-dcps-students-staff-need-to-show-proof-of-negative-covid-test-before-return-to-school/)
Scroll past ad breaks to read article. Posted 12/29/21
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on December 31, 2021, 10:49:09 AM
We are supposed to test negative before returning to campus on MONDAY.
Can we get tested on campus?  Of course not!  It's a holiday and campus is closed.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 31, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: mleok on December 25, 2021, 09:55:49 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 24, 2021, 09:35:06 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on December 24, 2021, 06:22:10 AM
Hegemony notes:Meanwhile obviously it's the time to go for many residents of the area, because the death rates were already high and now they're climbing. So far most of the local people I know have been lucky. But with Omicron, I have a feeling some of them will cease to be lucky. It's like being present at a slow-motion train wreck. It's really depressing.

Even if Omicron causes fewer serious cases and a lower death rate, it does seem to be having a very negative effect on health care facilities, and is apparently hitting children particularly hard.  Yes, it's discouraging and depressing.

Obviously it depends on the numbers, but when you trade a dip in severity for a rise in virulence it can end up being a bit of a wash.

Except that the severity is a multiplicative factor, whereas the transmissibility enters in an exponential. The only cold comfort is that the virus may end up burning through susceptible hosts very quickly.

Yes, I meant that the increased virulence washes out (or worse) the decreased severity.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 05, 2022, 10:20:42 AM
The State Librarian notified us today that public libraries in our state will be used as distribution sites for some of the 1.5 million rapid self-test kits to be distributed in our state.  Hopefully next week we'll be able to pick some up at the county health unit as part of our share.  The State Librarian envisions as many as 15% of the kits being distributed through libraries.  We'll see whether people want to come here to get them.  I suppose there will be at least a few people who consider us a more convenient/less scary place to go for them than the county health unit.

Infection numbers seem to have blown up here in recent days, as they have everywhere in the state.  The scary thing is, even as infections have gone up so much in our state, we've actually moved down a couple of notches in the league tables of states with high rates of infection.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Morden on January 05, 2022, 10:26:36 AM
Reported case rates are getting less and less reliable in Canada as more jurisdictions are reserving PCR tests for those really sick. We just don't have the testing capacity to test everyone who has it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on January 05, 2022, 10:46:50 AM
So how are things going to play out after January/February? Omicron will have swept the nation, hospitalizations will be down, and people will be feeling like the worst is over. We will move back to opening restaurants and going maskless in supermarkets.

How soon will universities tell students they don't need masks in classrooms? For how much longer will there be restrictions depending on vaccination status?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: aside on January 05, 2022, 10:51:09 AM
My place has already said masks will be required in classes (but not hallways!) through the end of January.  So comforting.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on January 05, 2022, 11:30:30 AM
Quote from: downer on January 05, 2022, 10:46:50 AM
So how are things going to play out after January/February? Omicron will have swept the nation, hospitalizations will be down, and people will be feeling like the worst is over. We will move back to opening restaurants and going maskless in supermarkets.

How soon will universities tell students they don't need masks in classrooms? For how much longer will there be restrictions depending on vaccination status?

Different questions, no?

Masks in classrooms should be linked to overall community prevalence and risk. I do think it would be helpful for schools to set actual metrics for that

You need to get various vaccines to attend most colleges. I can't really see why Covid vaccines should be different for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on January 06, 2022, 10:40:55 AM
Quote from: downer on January 05, 2022, 10:46:50 AM
So how are things going to play out after January/February? Omicron will have swept the nation, hospitalizations will be down, and people will be feeling like the worst is over. We will move back to opening restaurants and going maskless in supermarkets.

How soon will universities tell students they don't need masks in classrooms? For how much longer will there be restrictions depending on vaccination status?

Our restaurants are all full capacity & only require masks if you are not seated.  Even though our infection rate is skyrocketing.
The state has declared masking for all indoor public spaces.

I'm guessing we'll be masking up at the university until the end of this academic year.  My money is on masks being optional next Fall, with a vaccine mandate & a "stay home if you're sick" policy.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 10, 2022, 02:08:17 PM
Our county health office contacted us today and said that the test kits are in, and that they'll bring them to us tomorrow.  Saves us a trip to their office.  Only problem is the first shipment isn't as big as originally planned, so we'll only be getting one case of tests in this first batch, not the two we'd been promised.  It's not just us--they're being spread thinner all around the state.  I had supposed that we'd get enough in this shipment to last us for some days, but with demand as high as it is and our allocation having been cut in half, we might end up running out pretty quickly once the news gets out that we have them.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on January 10, 2022, 04:31:21 PM
Shh--don't tell....

   (...kidding...)

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on January 10, 2022, 06:54:03 PM
Gov. Northam has declared a 30 day state of emergency in VA:
https://wtop.com/virginia/2022/01/citing-spike-in-covid-hospitalizations-northam-declares-state-of-emergency-in-va/ (https://wtop.com/virginia/2022/01/citing-spike-in-covid-hospitalizations-northam-declares-state-of-emergency-in-va/)
Posted on WTOP Radio online (1/10/22)

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on January 11, 2022, 06:46:17 AM
Our state is a "hot spot"; our city is even more of a hot spot because of the population density; during the last 14 days, the number of cases has gone up by 94%, and the number of hospitalizations by 224%. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/new-york-covid-cases.html

Our elected officials seem to think that testing and more testing is the solution! Schools are open, and everything is back to normal.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on January 11, 2022, 06:53:50 AM
The subway system is not doing well. Lots of delays due to staff shortages.

With the hospitalization peak lagging behind the COVID peak, the next two weeks are going to be rough in the city. Hard to say when the numbers will start going down.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Harlow2 on January 11, 2022, 06:56:15 AM
My state in the Philly metro area is now full of unmasked people everywhere, hospitals in one nearby county are diverting patients and others are full. General case increases have pushed NJ completely into the red zone.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Ruralguy on January 11, 2022, 07:08:37 AM
Honestly, who knows?  My school is one of the more conservative ones out there, but decided long ago that they would use CDC guidance as the rule for masking and such unless of core the state law was stricter (which it hasn't been for a while). We will likely have masks until the end of the semester. If no other variants causing surges (probably impossible for now), we might get to no masks by the summer/fall.

The nature of future variants and how many people are vaccinated and how effective those vaccine actually are will really determine almost everything. On the first, nobody can really say anything, other than it links to the second point because if a large portion of public is unvaccinated, there will be variants getting through to more people. As many have started, getting past 75% vaxed in the US overall will be very difficult, even with approval for all but the youngest children (though when those approvals go through, which they will, rate can be bumped up several percent). Effectiveness----big open question, though clearly its better to be vaxed than not. But do we really know that will always be the case? It may start to have very marginal benefit at some point. However, at that point, the formula for the vaccine would likely be altered.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 11, 2022, 07:43:49 AM
Our test kits have arrived!  The county health office is hoping to receive more within another day or two.  We'll start getting the word out.

I relayed everything the county health officer told me about the tests for the benefit of the staff.  I'm a little concerned about staff morale.  One staff member is a serious worrier.  She gives the impression that she wants nothing to do with these kits for fear that they will bring swarms of sick, contagious people to the library.  We're going to encourage people to pick them up curbside to minimize that risk.  I've offered to take them out to the patrons myself if they want.  I'm not worried about momentary curbside contact, especially since I'll be masked.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Istiblennius on January 11, 2022, 07:48:13 AM
We have been getting regular updates from our public school district warning us to prepare for a return to remote learning... It's not that the kids are getting very sick in droves, but rather that the number of positive tests/symptoms/caring for someone who is sick requiring staff to stay home means they simply cannot staff the school. A friend pointed out that hopefully they could run a skeleton crew to at least support the students on IEPs and at greatest mental health risk. That's not my kids, which is okay and I think it's a great idea, so I'm hoping the school district considers that.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on January 11, 2022, 08:38:35 AM
I hope it gets worked out, but it should be pointed out that some kids with IEPs (I have one of my music students, and possibly his brother, in mind) are actually happier being at home, which is how the semester at their elementary and middle schools started out last week.

Their mom is saying, on the one hand "How did I do this for nearly two years?" and on the other, "NN (the older one, my student, with various ADHD and other related issues) would be happy to be home-schooled for the rest of his life: fewer distractions and the ability to take quick time-outs anytime he needs to."

Since he does very well in our music work with structured time-outs every 15 min., and has aced his coursework over the past two years (some of which I tutored him with, at first--and was impressed with his insights and steady attention to detail), I don't think that's his mom being blindly proud, I think it's true.

Special ed is not a one-size-fits-all set of specifications, although some of those generalizations may well be true for some kids, and should be considered for all, with the understanding that the exceptions also need to be attended to.

M. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on January 11, 2022, 08:50:48 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 11, 2022, 07:43:49 AM
Our test kits have arrived!  The county health office is hoping to receive more within another day or two.  We'll start getting the word out.

I relayed everything the county health officer told me about the tests for the benefit of the staff.  I'm a little concerned about staff morale.  One staff member is a serious worrier.  She gives the impression that she wants nothing to do with these kits for fear that they will bring swarms of sick, contagious people to the library.  We're going to encourage people to pick them up curbside to minimize that risk.  I've offered to take them out to the patrons myself if they want.  I'm not worried about momentary curbside contact, especially since I'll be masked.
Helpful tip: If patrons have specific questions for your staff about the test kits when they pick them up, they should be directed/referred to the county health dept.

Out of curiosity, is there a limit of how many test kits your county Health Dept has decided that people can take when your library starts distribution?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Istiblennius on January 11, 2022, 08:58:01 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 11, 2022, 08:38:35 AM

Special ed is not a one-size-fits-all set of specifications, although some of those generalizations may well be true for some kids, and should be considered for all, with the understanding that the exceptions also need to be attended to.

M.

I completely agree - sorry for being unclear, I meant that the Individualized Education Plans (that exist because it is not one-size-fits-all as you one) can and should guide next steps if we go remote. My thinking is that for many of the kids with IEPs that indicate, with the support of their team, that some time at school with their supports is needed, can and should get some priority if only a smaller group of kids can get instruction in person. FWIW I do have a child on an IEP and their IEP would not indicate this need for in person, although they would still need some target one on one but that could be done remotely and still meet the needs of their IEP. They have some buddies with different IEPs that include targeted occupational therapy, social skills and mental health supports and such that might not be a good fit remotely.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on January 11, 2022, 09:23:54 AM
OK, yes. We're saying mostly the same things.

Most of my student's OT and other therapeutic interventions happen off-site (the school system didn't have what he needed, he has a kind of slight palsy which he has nearly outgrown, although not completely) so he was still going, with precautions, to his individual therapist during lockdown, as the only 'outside' activity (she basically became part of their pod).

He's a very gregarious kid, but direct social interaction doesn't seem to be a 'must' for him, and he (and his family--both parents are engineers) is also very geeky, so online connections are fine with him as well; it's an interesting situation.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 11, 2022, 10:19:13 AM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on January 11, 2022, 08:50:48 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 11, 2022, 07:43:49 AM
Our test kits have arrived!  The county health office is hoping to receive more within another day or two.  We'll start getting the word out.

I relayed everything the county health officer told me about the tests for the benefit of the staff.  I'm a little concerned about staff morale.  One staff member is a serious worrier.  She gives the impression that she wants nothing to do with these kits for fear that they will bring swarms of sick, contagious people to the library.  We're going to encourage people to pick them up curbside to minimize that risk.  I've offered to take them out to the patrons myself if they want.  I'm not worried about momentary curbside contact, especially since I'll be masked.
Helpful tip: If patrons have specific questions for your staff about the test kits when they pick them up, they should be directed/referred to the county health dept.

Out of curiosity, is there a limit of how many test kits your county Health Dept has decided that people can take when your library starts distribution?

Two kits per individual, up to six per household.  People can come back later and get more if they need them and they're still available.  There was some confusion initially between KITS and individual TESTS.  Each kit contains two tests.  We're counting KITS handed out.  We're not taking names, but we plan to keep an eye out to see whether any repeat customers seem to be trying to get an inordinate number of kits.  With kits in short supply overall, there's just a bit of a chance that somebody might try to get hold of a bunch and sell them.

We've handed out five kits so far, even before announcing it on our own social media. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 11, 2022, 12:57:06 PM
Demand exploded over lunchtime!  Over three-quarters of our initial supply are now gone.  At this rate we won't last until closing time at 6:30.  We'd given away at least half the supply before we even posted anything on our own social media!  I sure hope we get more tomorrow.

This shows the wisdom of using libraries as alternative distribution points.  The health office is working hard enough as it is.  We, the other library in the county, the health unit, and the hospital have been besieged over the past two hours.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 11, 2022, 01:25:32 PM
And we're now tapped out.  The kits lasted all of six hours.  Judging from a phone call we got from a neighboring county, they ran out even faster than we did.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on January 11, 2022, 07:06:28 PM
Mayor Bowser has declared a limited public health emergency for the District:
https://wtop.com/dc/2022/01/dc-mayor-declares-limited-public-health-emergency/ (https://wtop.com/dc/2022/01/dc-mayor-declares-limited-public-health-emergency/)
Posted on WTOP online 1/11/22
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on January 11, 2022, 07:52:37 PM
As found today on the interwebz:  "Although Covid spreads mostly through the mouth and nose, scientists now conclude the greatest risk comes from assholes."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 12, 2022, 06:17:26 AM
Just got word that we're supposed to receive more tests today.  Something tells me it probably still won't meet the day's demand--but at least we'll have something.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 12, 2022, 12:35:59 PM
Well, the new batch evidently arrived moments after I stepped out to lunch--and were nearly all handed out by the time I came back.  I didn't have a chance to call the Mayor's office and let them know they arrived, and nobody thought to call the school.  All but a handful were gone in less than an hour.  I don't know when we're going to get any more--what we handed out today and yesterday was our whole original allocation.  Maybe the next wave won't be too long in coming.

The line for testing at the hospital was reportedly over an hour.  I know somebody who had a minor procedure done today who was tested before they worked on him.  He didn't have such a long wait for the test, so maybe there's something to be said for having minor surgery.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Ruralguy on January 12, 2022, 12:38:48 PM
Ah, too bad I got my deviated septum corrected a decade ago.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Wahoo Redux on January 12, 2022, 05:56:32 PM
I got it.  I can't believe it.  For two years we've been very, very careful.  Seldom left the house.  Didn't go to movies or the bookstore.  Paid to have groceries delivered.  Haven't seen a museum piece or been to a concert since 2019.  Bought the good masks and double-masked when the school made us go back to class. 

Then I went west to help a sick relative over break, and somewhere in an airport, I think, I inhaled enough viral load.  Self-reported to the school and teaching remote for now.

This is very mild, probably Omicron, and I am better every day, but the fatigue is a real thing.

So, so careful.  Now I am watching my wife every day.  So far she is fine.  Of course, if this is the worst it gets it is worth the supposed "super immunity" we will have.

Ah man.  Be careful all.  Keep the masks on.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on January 12, 2022, 06:07:26 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 12, 2022, 05:56:32 PM
I got it.  I can't believe it.  For two years we've been very, very careful.  Seldom left the house.  Didn't go to movies or the bookstore.  Paid to have groceries delivered.  Haven't seen a museum piece or been to a concert since 2019.  Bought the good masks and double-masked when the school made us go back to class. 

Then I went west to help a sick relative over break, and somewhere in an airport, I think, I inhaled enough viral load.  Self-reported to the school and teaching remote for now.

This is very mild, probably Omicron, and I am better every day, but the fatigue is a real thing.

So, so careful.  Now I am watching my wife every day.  So far she is fine.  Of course, if this is the worst it gets it is worth the supposed "super immunity" we will have.

Ah man.  Be careful all.  Keep the masks on.

Glad you only have mild symptoms! Don't think of it as a failure, think of it as waiting long enough to be vaxxed, boosted and encounter a milder variant. We are almost certainly all going to have it sooner or later, but fortunately boosted vaccines turn it into mostly an annoyance for otherwise healthy folks.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on January 13, 2022, 05:15:03 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 12, 2022, 05:56:32 PM
I got it.  I can't believe it.  For two years we've been very, very careful.  Seldom left the house.  Didn't go to movies or the bookstore.  Paid to have groceries delivered.  Haven't seen a museum piece or been to a concert since 2019.  Bought the good masks and double-masked when the school made us go back to class. 

Then I went west to help a sick relative over break, and somewhere in an airport, I think, I inhaled enough viral load.  Self-reported to the school and teaching remote for now.

This is very mild, probably Omicron, and I am better every day, but the fatigue is a real thing.

So, so careful.  Now I am watching my wife every day.  So far she is fine.  Of course, if this is the worst it gets it is worth the supposed "super immunity" we will have.

Ah man.  Be careful all.  Keep the masks on.

Sorry to hear about your symptoms.

Although the feds seem to think that most of us are going to get the virus
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/11/most-people-are-going-get-covid-momentous-warning-senate-hearing/ there appear to be no penalties for not wearing masks or taking other precautions. Last week the cashier in the grocery store had her mask pulled down to her chin.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on January 13, 2022, 05:29:34 AM
While the death rate is high and climbing, it's clear the main goal is still to flatten the curve to reduce the crisis with the availability of hospital beds. So we want to reduce a spread of COVID. With omicron, it's starting to feel that's a lost cause.

I got called for jury service soon. That should be interesting.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:16:08 AM
With masks less and less effective, and the new variant making end-runs around the current vaccines, and everybody long since fatigued at taking precautions, there's a great deal of fatalism setting in.  Downer's right that we should still be doing what we can to "flatten the curve," but it's getting harder and harder for people to make themselves do that.  Omicron is just going to have to burn itself out, I guess. 

Excellent point made by Puget about how those of us who've kept COVID-free until now have been successful at dodging the more serious early variants.  Our work of isolating and masking and vaccinating hasn't all been in vain.  It has saved many lives, and is still saving them.  That's a worthwhile thing to do, even if we've been unable to save everybody.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on January 13, 2022, 12:18:27 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:16:08 AM
With masks less and less effective, and the new variant making end-runs around the current vaccines, and everybody long since fatigued at taking precautions, there's a great deal of fatalism setting in.  Downer's right that we should still be doing what we can to "flatten the curve," but it's getting harder and harder for people to make themselves do that.  Omicron is just going to have to burn itself out, I guess. 

Excellent point made by Puget about how those of us who've kept COVID-free until now have been successful at dodging the more serious early variants.  Our work of isolating and masking and vaccinating hasn't all been in vain.  It has saved many lives, and is still saving them.  That's a worthwhile thing to do, even if we've been unable to save everybody.

Right now it seems to be flatting on the Y-axis, not the X.  The fact that Omicron is so much more contagious is frightening.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on January 13, 2022, 01:12:05 PM
Quote from: the_geneticist on January 13, 2022, 12:18:27 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:16:08 AM
With masks less and less effective, and the new variant making end-runs around the current vaccines, and everybody long since fatigued at taking precautions, there's a great deal of fatalism setting in.  Downer's right that we should still be doing what we can to "flatten the curve," but it's getting harder and harder for people to make themselves do that.  Omicron is just going to have to burn itself out, I guess. 

Excellent point made by Puget about how those of us who've kept COVID-free until now have been successful at dodging the more serious early variants.  Our work of isolating and masking and vaccinating hasn't all been in vain.  It has saved many lives, and is still saving them.  That's a worthwhile thing to do, even if we've been unable to save everybody.

Right now it seems to be flatting on the Y-axis, not the X.  The fact that Omicron is so much more contagious is frightening.

It is however, starting to peak and then drop in the earliest hit areas (NYC, Boston, DC, etc.) and will hopefully fall quickly as it did elsewhere. Levels in Boston wastewater have been plunging for example, which is generally a leading indicator.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 14, 2022, 07:40:24 AM
The test kit distributions have been such a frustrating business!  Because there are such massive back orders of tests, the state is getting them only in dribs and drabs, and thus can only pass them on to us in dribs and drabs.  There aren't remotely enough at any one time.  Some libraries have been waiting until they have their day's allotment in hand and then announcing a time to distribute.  The result is long lines in which only the first few in line get anything, and everything's gone in a few minutes.  It seems like there's no way to do this that really works.

To me that doesn't seem a very satisfactory alternative to how we've done it on our first two days.  But the staff have convinced me that it would overall be the best way to do it, so we'll try that today.  The local health officer is trying to get them to us in about two hours.  They think they can snag us an additional case of kits to distribute as well. 

We've gotten lots and lots of requests to reserve kits for later pickup.  We can't do that--it's first-come, first-served.  I've had to tell a close friend at church who badly needs one that I can't hold one for her.  That was heartbreaking.

Our schools and many businesses are now shut down.  It's like a ghost town here.  Like it was in the spring of 2020.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Kron3007 on January 14, 2022, 08:12:11 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on January 13, 2022, 12:18:27 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:16:08 AM
With masks less and less effective, and the new variant making end-runs around the current vaccines, and everybody long since fatigued at taking precautions, there's a great deal of fatalism setting in.  Downer's right that we should still be doing what we can to "flatten the curve," but it's getting harder and harder for people to make themselves do that.  Omicron is just going to have to burn itself out, I guess. 

Excellent point made by Puget about how those of us who've kept COVID-free until now have been successful at dodging the more serious early variants.  Our work of isolating and masking and vaccinating hasn't all been in vain.  It has saved many lives, and is still saving them.  That's a worthwhile thing to do, even if we've been unable to save everybody.

Right now it seems to be flatting on the Y-axis, not the X.  The fact that Omicron is so much more contagious is frightening.

That's true of case counts, but not death toll, which is more important. 

Despite Omicron, the vaccine is still largely working to prevent the worst cases.  The issue facing hospitals remains the unvaccinated and they would have a lot more breathing room if uptake was higher.  Where I am, the ICU is over 50% unvaccinated despite a vaccination rate well into the 80s...
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on January 14, 2022, 08:39:31 AM
Why am I getting news alerts about Novak Djokovic? I really don't care that much -- it's slightly interesting and basically unimportant.

Looking at the states with highest hospitalization rates,
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/states-ranked-by-covid-19-hospitalization-rates-august-2.html
I'm not seeing as close a correlation between states with low vaccination rates as I'd expect.

I have seen graphs showing the unvaccinated are at far greater risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/briefing/omicron-deaths-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated.html

I'm guessing hospitalization and death rates are going to start shooting up in states were the vaccination rate is low.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on January 14, 2022, 11:53:10 AM
Quote from: downer on January 14, 2022, 08:39:31 AM
Why am I getting news alerts about Novak Djokovic? I really don't care that much -- it's slightly interesting and basically unimportant.

Looking at the states with highest hospitalization rates,
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/states-ranked-by-covid-19-hospitalization-rates-august-2.html
I'm not seeing as close a correlation between states with low vaccination rates as I'd expect.


I have seen graphs showing the unvaccinated are at far greater risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/briefing/omicron-deaths-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated.html

I'm guessing hospitalization and death rates are going to start shooting up in states were the vaccination rate is low.

I think this is largely an artifact of the fact that this wave hit the (highly vaccinated) coasts first. The individual case level data are very clear that the vaccines still have upwards of 90% relative effectiveness against hospitalization.

The picture is further confused by the fact that something like 40% of cases many places are hospitalized with rather than for COVID currently. States are just starting to separate these out in reporting.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 14, 2022, 01:28:50 PM
We opened today's distribution at 2:00 p.m.  We did get two cases to distribute this time.  The distribution lasted all of half an hour.  Giving everybody a designated time when a distribution would begin, instead of simply starting the distribution when we got the materials, did indeed work better.  The initial line was not as long or as disruptive as I had feared.  I was afraid we might have a traffic jam in our parking lot and spilling out onto the road.  But everything went smoothly and efficiently.

Interesting to note how framing and nudging can affect people's behavior.  The state's web site says that individuals can get one test kit (containing two tests), and lets households get one test per family member, up to six, i.e. three kits.  Most people interpreted that to mean "I'm entitled to ask for three kits" regardless of household size.  Staff members were basically handing everybody who came along three kits, unless they specifically asked for only one or two.  The problem is, with the shortage of available test kits as dire as it is, this is not a good way to stretch the supply.

When we started handing people one kit, explaining that there were two tests inside, and asking how many were in their household if they asked for more, we were able to turn some requests for two kits (for couples) into one, and requests for three (when there were only three or four in the household) to two.  If we hadn't done that, the last eight or nine people who came would have gone away empty-handed.

We're supposed to get more kits to distribute on Tuesday.  No word yet on what time.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: nebo113 on January 15, 2022, 06:21:59 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 14, 2022, 08:12:11 AM
Quote from: the_geneticist on January 13, 2022, 12:18:27 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:16:08 AM
With masks less and less effective, and the new variant making end-runs around the current vaccines, and everybody long since fatigued at taking precautions, there's a great deal of fatalism setting in.  Downer's right that we should still be doing what we can to "flatten the curve," but it's getting harder and harder for people to make themselves do that.  Omicron is just going to have to burn itself out, I guess. 

Excellent point made by Puget about how those of us who've kept COVID-free until now have been successful at dodging the more serious early variants.  Our work of isolating and masking and vaccinating hasn't all been in vain.  It has saved many lives, and is still saving them.  That's a worthwhile thing to do, even if we've been unable to save everybody.

Right now it seems to be flatting on the Y-axis, not the X.  The fact that Omicron is so much more contagious is frightening.

That's true of case counts, but not death toll, which is more important. 

Despite Omicron, the vaccine is still largely working to prevent the worst cases.  The issue facing hospitals remains the unvaccinated and they would have a lot more breathing room if uptake was higher.  Where I am, the ICU is over 50% unvaccinated despite a vaccination rate well into the 80s...

In my area, ICU/ventilation is over 90%.  Sheer insanity.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on January 15, 2022, 01:50:52 PM
Showing proof of vaccination is required in DC:
https://wtop.com/dc/2022/01/web-story-business-covid-townhall/ (https://wtop.com/dc/2022/01/web-story-business-covid-townhall/)
Posted on WTOP online 1/15/22
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on January 16, 2022, 07:19:58 AM
Some colleges are deciding to stay open this semester on the grounds that Covid is now endemic.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/16/us/politics/omicron-colleges-restrictions-spring.html
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 19, 2022, 02:03:37 PM
We distributed another 180 COVID test kits yesterday.  This time it took us a whole hour, instead of not quite half that.  Sounds like maybe people aren't as desperate now, although demand continues to exceed supply.  The county health nurse said that she noticed that they weren't as desperately busy yesterday either.  Maybe that's a hopeful sign?  The state's hospitalization figures have just hit a new record, but there are at least significantly fewer ventilator and ICU cases. 

We just got word from the county nurse that we probably won't have kits available tomorrow either.  Must be some new snag in the supply chain.  Right now the state distribution is having to fill the gap before the new federal distributions start coming through.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on January 19, 2022, 02:54:58 PM
Rationed tests [seven per person per day] are free at the pharmacy in the UK and cost less than $1 per test in Germany. Have been readily available for a long time, over a year.

Why not in the US? Thimk.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on January 19, 2022, 03:13:09 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:16:08 AM
With masks less and less effective..



I don't think there's any reason to think that's true. Let's pretend that the chance of catching delta in a room where one person is infected, with 10 people for an hour was 25 percent if everyone was unmasked and only 5 percent if everyone had a mask on. . Imagine Omnicron made the chance of infection for both the masked and unmasked go up 3x. It would seem like masks were less and less effective, but their effectiveness would have actually remained the same.

Probably, the numbers don't work this way and the risk actually goes up for the unmasked more. We haven't suddenly heard lots of reports of classroom spread, for example. If you do the pretend numbers again and imagine that its still 5 percent for the masked room if there's one infected person, it would seem like masks were less effective because you'd see more people getting infected. After all, more people are getting infected when everyone is wearing a mask. But, actually, its just that there are lots more infections so there are more chances for that 5 percent to happen.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on January 19, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Things have definitely turned to corner now both in my state and on my campus. The campus test positivity rate has dropped from a high of nearly 8% a couple of weeks ago (when it was mostly just faculty, staff and grad students being tested) to 2% this week, even with many undergrad students moving back in (we are remote for the first 2 weeks of classes, but students can move back any time in there).

I do somewhat suspect that a lot of those positive PCR tests from early January were picking up prior rather than current infections, since most people hadn't been PCR tested since the semester ended at that point. The amount of routine PCR testing on campuses and other major employers around here makes me wonder if that didn't distort the rates a bit, with a holiday lull in those tests followed by everyone getting a read-out of several weeks of possible infections all at once.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 21, 2022, 01:19:48 PM
An estimated 3% of our state's population have active infections.  Almost a quarter have had some variety of COVID.  At least fatal infections are now far less common.

Still no new tests to hand out at the library today.  The State Librarian tells us that libraries' cooperation in getting the tests out has gained us a good deal of goodwill.  That's good, I know, but I still wish we could do more to help people needing COVID test kits than simply give them directions on how to order tests online.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 26, 2022, 12:33:36 PM
Found out today that our pastor got COVID late last week, it has now turned into pneumonia, and he has been sent to a hospital in a neighboring county, since there were no beds available here.  Very concerned about him.  He has been fully vaccinated for some time now and has advocated vaccination.  But it has still gotten him.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on January 26, 2022, 12:47:08 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 26, 2022, 12:33:36 PM
Found out today that our pastor got COVID late last week, it has now turned into pneumonia, and he has been sent to a hospital in a neighboring county, since there were no beds available here.  Very concerned about him.  He has been fully vaccinated for some time now and has advocated vaccination.  But it has still gotten him.
Ugh.  :(

The omicron variant has been getting to many, many vaccinated and boosted people (including, recently, my next-door neighbors), but on average, they do a whole lot better than unvaccinated folks (both in staying out of the hospital and also in faring better in the hospital if admitted). 

I wish your pastor a speedy and complete recovery of body and of spirit.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on January 26, 2022, 01:28:19 PM
Agreed.

All good thoughts...to you, to him, and to the congregation.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 27, 2022, 05:06:48 PM
We got our boosters today, a couple months ahead of schedule. Moderna.

So far, I have nothing much to write home about. I had a brief spell of heartburn, but it was brief (for the first dose, which was Pfizer, I had bad heartburn for days; for dose 2, which was Moderna, I had the worst heartburn of my life, and it lasted weeks and only went away with a proton pump inhibitor).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on January 28, 2022, 04:26:38 AM
Quote from: namazu on January 26, 2022, 12:47:08 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 26, 2022, 12:33:36 PM
Found out today that our pastor got COVID late last week, it has now turned into pneumonia, and he has been sent to a hospital in a neighboring county, since there were no beds available here.  Very concerned about him.  He has been fully vaccinated for some time now and has advocated vaccination.  But it has still gotten him.
Ugh.  :(

The omicron variant has been getting to many, many vaccinated and boosted people (including, recently, my next-door neighbors), but on average, they do a whole lot better than unvaccinated folks (both in staying out of the hospital and also in faring better in the hospital if admitted). 


Yeah, the anecdotal reports I've seen from doctors are that they are admitting some vaccinated elderly people to hospitals but compared to previous waves, most of these people are in much better shape. They just need some fluids and supplemental oxygen and they can usually go home in a day or two. Hope that turns out to be the case here.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Puget on January 28, 2022, 06:28:40 AM
Quote from: Caracal on January 28, 2022, 04:26:38 AM
Quote from: namazu on January 26, 2022, 12:47:08 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 26, 2022, 12:33:36 PM
Found out today that our pastor got COVID late last week, it has now turned into pneumonia, and he has been sent to a hospital in a neighboring county, since there were no beds available here.  Very concerned about him.  He has been fully vaccinated for some time now and has advocated vaccination.  But it has still gotten him.
Ugh.  :(

The omicron variant has been getting to many, many vaccinated and boosted people (including, recently, my next-door neighbors), but on average, they do a whole lot better than unvaccinated folks (both in staying out of the hospital and also in faring better in the hospital if admitted). 


Yeah, the anecdotal reports I've seen from doctors are that they are admitting some vaccinated elderly people to hospitals but compared to previous waves, most of these people are in much better shape. They just need some fluids and supplemental oxygen and they can usually go home in a day or two. Hope that turns out to be the case here.

Boosters are key-- new data shows ~90% efficacy of boosters against hospitalization in all age groups.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on January 31, 2022, 07:22:10 AM
Our pastor is still in the hospital.  He has made some progress, and has not been in desperate shape.

A staff member who had COVID last week has now recovered.  It was her second bout as well.  She had much less trouble with this variant.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on January 31, 2022, 09:03:24 AM
Into the newsroom:
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2022/01/moderna-announces-full-us-approval-for-its-covid-19-vaccine/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2022/01/moderna-announces-full-us-approval-for-its-covid-19-vaccine/)
Posted on WTOP Radio 1/31/22
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on February 07, 2022, 07:49:08 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 31, 2022, 07:22:10 AM
Our pastor is still in the hospital.  He has made some progress, and has not been in desperate shape.

He came home yesterday!  He's weak and had to bring home supplementary oxygen, although he isn't using a lot of it.  At this point it looks like a case of "long COVID."
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on February 07, 2022, 02:43:27 PM
Quote from: apl68 on February 07, 2022, 07:49:08 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 31, 2022, 07:22:10 AM
Our pastor is still in the hospital.  He has made some progress, and has not been in desperate shape.
He came home yesterday!  He's weak and had to bring home supplementary oxygen, although he isn't using a lot of it.  At this point it looks like a case of "long COVID."
Very glad and relieved to hear it.  Hope his condition continues to improve.



I am anxiously awaiting the outcome of the upcoming FDA meeting re: the 2-dose vaccine for young kids (6 months to <5 years).
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on February 07, 2022, 07:34:18 PM
Four state governors announce plans to end school mask mandates:
https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2022/02/governor-ending-new-jerseys-school-mask-mandate/ (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2022/02/governor-ending-new-jerseys-school-mask-mandate/)
From WTOP Radio online 2/7/22
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on February 10, 2022, 11:19:11 AM
COVID continues to spoil things for people.  We have a local cancer charity that raises funds to assist cancer patients with various incidental needs.  They also hold an annual cancer survivors' banquet.  For two years in a row now the "banquet" has been a drive-through event where each participant gets what amounts to a boxed lunch.  Necessary, of course--recent cancer survivors are some of the last people who need to risk undue exposure to COVID.  But what a shame.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on February 10, 2022, 02:09:41 PM
Today, Gov. Hogan asked the MD State Board of Ed. to end the mask policy:
https://wtop.com/maryland/2022/02/hogan-asks-md-board-of-education-to-end-mask-policy/ (https://wtop.com/maryland/2022/02/hogan-asks-md-board-of-education-to-end-mask-policy/)
From WTOP online 2/10/22
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: namazu on February 11, 2022, 02:54:02 PM
Quote from: namazu on February 07, 2022, 02:43:27 PMI am anxiously awaiting the outcome of the upcoming FDA meeting re: the 2-dose vaccine for young kids (6 months to <5 years).
Well, so much for that.  They've decided to defer consideration after all. (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/11/world/covid-19-tests-cases-vaccine/fda-delays-action-on-coronavirus-vaccine-for-young-children)

As the parent of a kid in the under-2 range where the vaccine apparently did effect the desired immune response, it really stinks.

As someone who wants, from both a personal and professional perspective, to be sure that the vaccine is indeed as effective and safe as advertised prior to roll-out, and to minimize the need for additional shots, it seems like a sensible move to wait for results from the 3rd-dose trial (expected in April).  Moderna will (allegedly) have results from their trial in the spring, too.

I'm not sure why the FDA called this meeting suddenly and then backtracked just as suddenly -- or at least that's how it appears.  Omicron was already waning in most areas (with the expectation of further drops) when they called the meeting, if my mental timeline is accurate, but maybe they called it before that?  We (parents of under-5s) have been jerked around a lot here, with premature announcements about the vaccine coming soon, and then not materializing.  I'll believe it when I see it.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: the_geneticist on February 13, 2022, 07:37:21 AM
Ugh.  I have friends and family members with young children who are waiting to see what is going to happen first:  their kid turns 5 or the vaccines for the under 5 are approved.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Aster on February 13, 2022, 11:55:47 AM
One of our local testing sites closed down on Friday. Ever since our region has been flooded with home test kits, the need for public testing centers has taken a steep nosedive. That part is good.

Unfortunately, the number of people still actually getting seriously sick with covid has barely dropped at all.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Caracal on February 14, 2022, 05:56:58 AM
Quote from: Aster on February 13, 2022, 11:55:47 AM
One of our local testing sites closed down on Friday. Ever since our region has been flooded with home test kits, the need for public testing centers has taken a steep nosedive. That part is good.

Unfortunately, the number of people still actually getting seriously sick with covid has barely dropped at all.

Do you mean in your local region or in the country as a whole?
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on February 14, 2022, 07:18:40 AM
Our pastor was able to be at church again yesterday.  He was weak and carrying a bottle of oxygen, but he was there.  He even stepped up to the pulpit and spoke for a couple of minutes before the guest preacher delivered the sermon.  It was an emotional moment for everybody when we saw him back up there.

He hopes to deliver the message next Sunday.  We'll see.  Although he is gradually improving, it will be a long time before he's fully recovered.  It's just as well that he had already planned to step down as pastor this year, and that we're at an advanced stage of the search for a newer and younger minister.  It's a demanding office.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Aster on February 14, 2022, 08:49:32 AM
Quote from: Caracal on February 14, 2022, 05:56:58 AM
Quote from: Aster on February 13, 2022, 11:55:47 AM
One of our local testing sites closed down on Friday. Ever since our region has been flooded with home test kits, the need for public testing centers has taken a steep nosedive. That part is good.

Unfortunately, the number of people still actually getting seriously sick with covid has barely dropped at all.

Do you mean in your local region or in the country as a whole?

Locally, regionally, and in our state. A national statistic has little value when the averages are non-representative. Even our state averages are pretty unreliable metrics, as my state is really big.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on February 14, 2022, 02:44:50 PM
DC Mayor Muriel Bowser announced the indoor mask mandate will be eased:
https://wtop.com/dc/2022/02/dc-businesses-wont-need-to-check-customers-for-proof-of-vaccine-starting-tuesday/ (https://wtop.com/dc/2022/02/dc-businesses-wont-need-to-check-customers-for-proof-of-vaccine-starting-tuesday/)

In MD, masks won't be required in state government buildings:
https://wtop.com/maryland/2022/02/maryland-to-lift-mask-requirement-for-state-buildings/ (https://wtop.com/maryland/2022/02/maryland-to-lift-mask-requirement-for-state-buildings/)

Posted on WTOP online 2/14/22
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 15, 2022, 03:54:57 PM
So... Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, and BC have decided to lift their COVID restrictions. Which doesn't sound at all like it was influenced in any way, shape, or form by the protesters.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on February 16, 2022, 03:15:41 PM
A friend's sister-in-law in Mississippi just died of non-Covid related issues--spinal meningitis, in fact.

The ERs for several miles around were so full they had to put her off for five days before they could promise a bed.

By the time they'd diagnosed her and could admit her she'd gone into a coma and had been accorded hospice at home instead.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on February 16, 2022, 05:08:36 PM
Mamselle, oh no, that's horrific.

My university has been on the prudent side in handling the pandemic. They require vaccinations for both students and staff (although rumor says that you can opt out merely by stating a philosophical objection). They have been requiring masks indoors on campus, and holding meetings online.

Next week we have our first in-person meeting — required, with hundreds of faculty present — and the word on the street is that the mask requirement is about to be lifted. Meanwhile transmission rates in our community are still high — they are "low" only in comparison with the stratospheric rates they reached a while back. And our hospital is overwhelmed. I have multiple health vulnerabilities, and boy I am not looking forward to being the only masked person in a room of 100 students to whom I am supposed to give a lecture. Unfortunately several people in key positions of power are of the "It's only a bad cold, you all should stop being wimps" attitude. Last I heard, bad colds did not overwhelm our hospital resources.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Larimar on February 16, 2022, 05:21:48 PM
Yipes and sorry to hear it, both Hegemony and Mamselle.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on February 18, 2022, 11:23:17 AM
How awful, mamselle.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on February 18, 2022, 11:37:22 AM
Yes, the whole area is full of folks who deny the virus and anything one might do against it.

My friend's 90-year-old mom (with heart issues) and 92-year-old dad (who weighs 300#, and has severe diabetes) both live in the same area, and are housebound.

She had a very hard time getting the visiting healthcaregivers to mask and be careful around them last year: she's now at home in Texas, fighting breast CA (mastectomy next week after a fall-winter prep) herself, so she has no control over the situation since her only surviving sibling doesn't see the point.

M.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on February 20, 2022, 07:17:17 PM
I'm so sorry to hear all that, mamselle.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Ruralguy on February 20, 2022, 07:23:25 PM
Everyone's probably jumping the gun by at least a month, and that's only if other waves don't establish themselves. Its astounding how impatient people can be, even if normally reasonable, and even if the impatience leads to more severe illness and heartache.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: hmaria1609 on March 01, 2022, 09:56:41 AM
DC has relaxed indoor masking rules as of today:
https://wtop.com/dc/2022/03/dc-dials-back-masking-in-most-indoor-settings/ (https://wtop.com/dc/2022/03/dc-dials-back-masking-in-most-indoor-settings/)
MD and VA did the same last month.
Posted on WTOP 3/1/22
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on April 10, 2022, 06:05:08 PM
The latest according to Fauci:

Quote
Dr. Anthony S. Fauci said on Sunday that the virus was still a  threat, but that people needed to decide for themselves what risks they would take.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/health/fauci-ba2-omicron-covid.html
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on April 10, 2022, 10:05:46 PM
"If we do start seeing an uptick, particularly of hospitalizations, we may need to revert back to being more careful and having more utilizations of masks indoors," he said."

The part I don't like is that we're always reactive rather than proactive. I'd rather prevent the uptick than respond to the uptick. However, I am very clearly in the minority on this. "Better sorry than safe" is the general feeling.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on April 10, 2022, 10:15:22 PM
I feel like he's given up.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on April 11, 2022, 05:19:05 AM
The administration's given up--they seem to be more concerned about "back to normal" than offering reliable medical updates on how to stay safe.

In NYC you don't need to be vaccinated or wear a mask, never mind the uptick in cases.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Parasaurolophus on April 11, 2022, 02:54:05 PM
Everybodyhas given up. Ontario aloneseems to ha e 100 000 cases a day, and they won't even reintroduce indoor masking.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on April 11, 2022, 04:15:33 PM
I got exposed by a student who tested positive a day after meeting with me after class.  I waited a couple of days to wait out the incubation period and then did 2 home antigen tests 48 hours apart.  Both were negative and not symptoms so I think I dodged a bullet - or at least a virus.  Got my 2nd booster as soon as I found I'd been exposed.

But I've gone back to wearing a mask in class and when out and about.  We may be sick of Covid, but Covid ain't nearly done messing with us. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on April 11, 2022, 05:12:02 PM
Philadelphia is reinstating  indoor masking because of the rise in cases.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anon1787 on April 12, 2022, 02:30:56 PM
Mask mandates are mainly Covid theater unless people wear (properly) at least KN-95 grade masks given how transmissible Omicron is. Vaccination is the best bet to protect yourself, but it only marginally reduces spread.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on April 12, 2022, 03:15:01 PM
I'd have to disagree. I can't be vaxxed, and only wear masks.

So far, so good...I barely go out, and only early in the day, and only to places where there are just a few folk in the store.

But wearing a mask is far from simple performative gesturing.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on April 12, 2022, 03:22:05 PM
And a lot of us are indeed wearing N95s. I have worn only N95s since about June 2020. I hand them out free to my students.

The word on the street is that George Washington University, in DC, has reinstated its mask mandate.

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on April 12, 2022, 04:24:11 PM
Where is this increase in new cases?

Here's the US from CDC https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailycases (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailycases) Looks trivial to me. Newspapers have to have something to report, I guess.

And here are deaths, an indicator of seriousness https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailydeaths
(https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailydeaths)

Dropping like a lead balloon.

Here are some interesting countries for cases  https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=USA~GBR~DEU~ITA~FRA~ISR~NLD~SWE (https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=USA~GBR~DEU~ITA~FRA~ISR~NLD~SWE)

And for deaths https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-10-24..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+deaths&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=USA~GBR~DEU~ITA~FRA~ISR~NLD~SWE
(https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-10-24..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+deaths&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=USA~GBR~DEU~ITA~FRA~ISR~NLD~SWE)

I find Sweden interesting. Least restrictive policies and low deaths.

For young people, the chance of death from Covid is infinitesimal, maybe 1/1000 of the chance for an 80year old with co-morbidities. This may help explain why young people behave the way they do.

Covid has largely become a private problem and is no longer a public problem. The vaccine did that mainly, of course. There is no solid evidence that masks do anything. [I wear one, because there may be a benefit, and the cost is small -- fogged glasses, really]. There will be those who cannot be vaccinated. They can be accommodated without everyone having to isolate, wear masks, or whatever.

Covid policy is a good example for the benefits of small jurisdictions. If some universities, firms, clubs want to do X, let them. If some want to do not X, let them. The smaller the decision making unit, the better we can all be accommodated.

Whatever, this stuff is or will become endemic. Get your Covid shot every year! :-) :-(

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anon1787 on April 12, 2022, 04:28:26 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on April 12, 2022, 03:22:05 PM
And a lot of us are indeed wearing N95s. I have worn only N95s since about June 2020. I hand them out free to my students.

The word on the street is that George Washington University, in DC, has reinstated its mask mandate.

My university, which claims to "follow the science," has required only cloth masks despite being proven to be useless and surgical masks are only somewhat effective. A mandate requiring (K)N95 masks would be even more unenforceable as a practical matter (very few students here have worn them during the pandemic and the general population would be even less likely to do so). So I maintain that they have become Covid theater.

It's most unfortunate that some people can't be vaccinated, but the rest of society can't be expected to continue to take extraordinary measures. It would also help if Congress got its act together and funded purchasing a large stock of therapeutics.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: clean on April 12, 2022, 04:32:46 PM
I ve been buying and wearing P95 masks.  They are more for particles, but from what I could find, they were pretty close to the 'official' N95s, and no one was faking those. 

I wear a mask TO class, but since Spring Break, I take the mask off during class, but put it on as soon as it is over, and students come close to ask questions.

I think that we are down to maybe 4 tops that regularly wear a mask during class. 
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: onthefringe on April 12, 2022, 05:48:42 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2022, 04:24:11 PM
Where is this increase in new cases?


The Northeast, where case rates have almost doubled since mid March. (https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=states-normalized&highlight=US-Northeast&show=us-states&y=highlightCurMax&scale=linear&data=cases-daily-7&data-source=jhu&xaxis=right-12wk-wks#states-normalized)

Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2022, 04:24:11 PM

I find Sweden interesting. Least restrictive policies and low deaths.


Unless you compare their total death rate (https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countries-normalized&highlight=Sweden&show=25-lg&y=highlightCurMax&scale=linear&data=deaths&data-source=jhu&xaxis=right-12wk-wks&extra=Norway%2CFinland#countries-normalized) to neighboring similar countries with more restrictive policies
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on April 12, 2022, 06:54:09 PM
Quote from: onthefringe on April 12, 2022, 05:48:42 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2022, 04:24:11 PM
Where is this increase in new cases?


The Northeast, where case rates have almost doubled since mid March. (https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=states-normalized&highlight=US-Northeast&show=us-states&y=highlightCurMax&scale=linear&data=cases-daily-7&data-source=jhu&xaxis=right-12wk-wks#states-normalized)

Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2022, 04:24:11 PM

I find Sweden interesting. Least restrictive policies and low deaths.


Unless you compare their total death rate (https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countries-normalized&highlight=Sweden&show=25-lg&y=highlightCurMax&scale=linear&data=deaths&data-source=jhu&xaxis=right-12wk-wks&extra=Norway%2CFinland#countries-normalized) to neighboring similar countries with more restrictive policies

Possibly interesting. But it looks like Sweden makes it.

In deaths https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=SWE~DNK~FIN (https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=SWE~DNK~FIN)

In cases https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=SWE~DNK~FIN (https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=SWE~DNK~FIN)

The US data suggest any current increase is local. It is certainly small. Nationally, it hardly counts. Of course, it will spread. But given all the international data, it seems not a cause for alarm.

That's really the point. We all differ in our risk aversion. No group owns their preferred policy. Question is who pays whom to get to their desired level of risk.


[ETA.: Forgot Norway. Still works for Sweden. Current cases and deaths.]
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anon1787 on April 12, 2022, 07:22:08 PM
Quote from: onthefringe on April 12, 2022, 05:48:42 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2022, 04:24:11 PM
Where is this increase in new cases?


The Northeast, where case rates have almost doubled since mid March. (https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=states-normalized&highlight=US-Northeast&show=us-states&y=highlightCurMax&scale=linear&data=cases-daily-7&data-source=jhu&xaxis=right-12wk-wks#states-normalized)

Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2022, 04:24:11 PM

I find Sweden interesting. Least restrictive policies and low deaths.


Unless you compare their total death rate (https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countries-normalized&highlight=Sweden&show=25-lg&y=highlightCurMax&scale=linear&data=deaths&data-source=jhu&xaxis=right-12wk-wks&extra=Norway%2CFinland#countries-normalized) to neighboring similar countries with more restrictive policies

Cases are no longer a particularly good metric. It's estimated that upwards of 70% of people in Denmark were infected with Omicron (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-22/denmark-says-70-of-population-got-covid-in-five-month-period). You'd need to do China-style lockdowns to prevent significant spread. It's arguably better for people to get infected now since Omicron is less virulent and people are vaccinated.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on April 12, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Quote from: Anon1787 on April 12, 2022, 07:22:08 PM
Quote from: onthefringe on April 12, 2022, 05:48:42 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2022, 04:24:11 PM
Where is this increase in new cases?


The Northeast, where case rates have almost doubled since mid March. (https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=states-normalized&highlight=US-Northeast&show=us-states&y=highlightCurMax&scale=linear&data=cases-daily-7&data-source=jhu&xaxis=right-12wk-wks#states-normalized)

Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2022, 04:24:11 PM

I find Sweden interesting. Least restrictive policies and low deaths.


Unless you compare their total death rate (https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countries-normalized&highlight=Sweden&show=25-lg&y=highlightCurMax&scale=linear&data=deaths&data-source=jhu&xaxis=right-12wk-wks&extra=Norway%2CFinland#countries-normalized) to neighboring similar countries with more restrictive policies

Cases are no longer a particularly good metric. It's estimated that upwards of 70% of people in Denmark were infected with Omicron (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-22/denmark-says-70-of-population-got-covid-in-five-month-period). You'd need to do China-style lockdowns to prevent significant spread. It's arguably better for people to get infected now since Omicron is less virulent and people are vaccinated.

That's why the death numbers are more informative. But I know of no data for China. Thus, we cannot even say that lockdowns help.

But current policy promulgations are justified in the news by case counts.

The Omicron characteristics should be widespread knowledge, but they aren't.

Anyways, the place for policy decisions about Covid is at a most decentral level, not because of lack of knowledge, but because people differ in risk aversion.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anon1787 on April 12, 2022, 10:15:23 PM
Looking back, I think that Sweden's policy during the first year of the pandemic is more questionable.

Currently, however, given the characteristics of Omicron and the failure of mitigation measures (other than vaccination) imposed in countries like Denmark to have a significant effect, I agree that decision-making should be done at a very local level and that the onus should be on those who argue otherwise.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on April 13, 2022, 12:40:06 AM
They said that in 1721, too.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: science.expat on April 13, 2022, 12:53:43 AM
Here in Aus, the Omicron variant is running rampant. We're sitting at about 20,000 new cases a day in NSW from a population of about 8 million. But hospitalisations are fairly low as is the death rate. I've had it, as have many of my colleagues.

For me, triple vaxxed and in my late 50s, the symptoms were very mild - just like a 3 day head cold. But other folks my age have had much worse flu like symptoms. However, I don't know anyone who has gone to hospital but I note that none of them are particularly vulnerable.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: spork on April 13, 2022, 05:43:12 AM
NBER working paper: A FINAL REPORT CARD ON THE STATES' RESPONSE TO COVID-19 (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29928/w29928.pdf)
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on April 13, 2022, 06:37:50 AM
Quote from: spork on April 13, 2022, 05:43:12 AM
NBER working paper: A FINAL REPORT CARD ON THE STATES' RESPONSE TO COVID-19 (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29928/w29928.pdf)

For me, the stand-out finding is

QuoteThe Relationship Between Mortality, Education, and Economy Scores
Excluding the geographically  unusual cases of Hawaii and Alaska to focus on the continental U.S., there is no apparent relationship between reduced economic activity during the pandemic and our composite mortality measure.

It's going to be very difficult for any state to impose lockdown in the future. And as for school closures, hard to see anyone making a convincing argument for them again.

QuoteSchool closures did have a moderate correlation with our mortality measure, but based on the literature we do not believe this relationship was causal.

Previously the CDC and politicians could say that their recommendations were from an abundance of caution. But now there are data.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Langue_doc on April 13, 2022, 11:24:28 AM
Quote from: onthefringe on April 12, 2022, 05:48:42 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2022, 04:24:11 PM
Where is this increase in new cases?


The Northeast, where case rates have almost doubled since mid March. (https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=states-normalized&highlight=US-Northeast&show=us-states&y=highlightCurMax&scale=linear&data=cases-daily-7&data-source=jhu&xaxis=right-12wk-wks#states-normalized)

Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2022, 04:24:11 PM

I find Sweden interesting. Least restrictive policies and low deaths.


Unless you compare their total death rate (https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countries-normalized&highlight=Sweden&show=25-lg&y=highlightCurMax&scale=linear&data=deaths&data-source=jhu&xaxis=right-12wk-wks&extra=Norway%2CFinland#countries-normalized) to neighboring similar countries with more restrictive policies

If you scroll down to the map of the hotspots, you can see that cases are going up in the Northeast.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html?name=styln-coronavirus&region=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=LegacyCollection&variant=show&is_new=false

I was talking to someone from one of the northern states who tested positive for Covid last week after experiencing severe Covid symptoms, and then two of the kids tested positive earlier this week, followed by the spouse, and then the third kid. This is a highly contagious variant, which, while not as serious as the previous ones, is still strong enough to require bed rest and taking time off from work. At least two teachers from two different kids' schools also tested positive either late last week or early this week. In addition, the neighbors who share the back fence came down with Covid (kids go to the same school) around the same time, as did some of the people who socialized with the person who came down with Covid last week. This is not by any means a congested neighborhood or school district.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on April 13, 2022, 11:55:13 AM
Quote from: downer on April 13, 2022, 06:37:50 AM
Quote from: spork on April 13, 2022, 05:43:12 AM
NBER working paper: A FINAL REPORT CARD ON THE STATES' RESPONSE TO COVID-19 (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29928/w29928.pdf)

For me, the stand-out finding is

QuoteThe Relationship Between Mortality, Education, and Economy Scores
Excluding the geographically  unusual cases of Hawaii and Alaska to focus on the continental U.S., there is no apparent relationship between reduced economic activity during the pandemic and our composite mortality measure.

It's going to be very difficult for any state to impose lockdown in the future. And as for school closures, hard to see anyone making a convincing argument for them again.

QuoteSchool closures did have a moderate correlation with our mortality measure, but based on the literature we do not believe this relationship was causal.

Previously the CDC and politicians could say that their recommendations were from an abundance of caution. But now there are data.

Oh, there's plenty of caution -- on the part of politicians being cautious so as not to mar their re-election chances!

As usual, the problem is us. We tend to overestimate small risks if we are not familiar with them, or until we are familiar with them. We transmit this to the politicians. The media exaggerate risk. That sells.

That paper Spork linked is really useful and heartening. One thing to keep in mind is

QuoteBecause COVID infection mortality risk is extremely age-related -- 8700 times higher in age 85+ than in 5 to 17,
according to the CDC

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Hegemony on April 14, 2022, 01:05:05 AM
A friend of mine went out to eat in a restaurant last week, something I am decidedly not yet willing to do, even though we're allegedly in a low-transmission area. Friend is now sick and has tested positive.

In related news, 3/20 of my students have tested positive. In the last three days.

(I am still teaching in an N95 mask, and am not going to stop any time soon.)

I read someone saying that when an area has "low numbers," it doesn't mean that the number of COVID cases is actually all that low — it means there is still room in the hospital for you.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Ruralguy on April 14, 2022, 04:28:01 AM
Its an algorithm taking into account cases, deaths, hospitalizations, hospital capacity, and their derivatives. You can check the CDC site to see if case numbers are actually low.

Im still wearing a mask inside. I didn't outside yesterday and a student  basically sneezed right on me.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on April 14, 2022, 08:50:24 AM
Interesting vignette, at least to me: I went to the bank machine area, which is in the forecourt of the bank itself.

It was after they'd opened, so both doors to the machine area were accessible (usually after-hours, just the main door is).

I was masked, gloved, and had already started to walk towards the machine when an unmasked kid strode in through the side door, which is near the machine, and started using it.

I backed away, walked out, and said, "OK, I'll come back later."

He looked surprised (to be fair, maybe he hadn't seen me), but he didn't apologize or offer to wait (I was closer to the machine than he was and had my card out) and walked up to the machine and started swiping his card.

It struck me that, a) it hadn't occurred to him that someone might need to be in the space alone; b) if they did, he wasn't going to cede the option even though he'd arrived later, and c) we're now at the point where, even in an area/town that's usually respectful and courteous to others, consideration of prior approach, possible need for isolation, and the concept of waiting for others is by-the-by.

The burden of isolation now, apparently, falls fully on those who need to be isolated, even when it might seem obvious that they have that need, and one courteous option might be to let the person who needs to be alone go first.   

Not a biggie at some levels, but it was different than it's been (and our wastewater outflow numbers are not looking good at present, so this issue is really not yet over.)

Tant pis. La vie continue.   

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anon1787 on April 15, 2022, 02:50:15 PM
Quote from: mamselle on April 14, 2022, 08:50:24 AM

The burden of isolation now, apparently, falls fully on those who need to be isolated, even when it might seem obvious that they have that need, and one courteous option might be to let the person who needs to be alone go first.   


Without further information, I'd just assume that someone wearing a mask and gloves is a cautious belt-and-suspenders type of person rather than having any special medical need, so I would not vacate the room either.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on April 25, 2022, 04:09:08 PM
Does anyone have any insights into what China's leadership is doing? Surely they realize that, even if the Shanghai lockdown succeeds in bringing cases down to zero, in some weeks or months there'd be cases again, and even if they again succeeded in bringing cases down to zero with lockdowns, it's be the same thing again and again.
I guess part of it is saving face - doing a U-turn would be implicitly admitting their Covid policy is not, in fact, the best in the world, and there's the issue of their crappy vaccines.  But the financial, social and psychological costs are surely vast - and a regime that's long boasted its economic successes has literally brought hunger back to Shanghai. They're making seemingly zero effort to not traumatize children, meaning China will bear the consequences for many decades to come. Plus, the lockdown isn't even working, the omicron wave seems to be spreading to Beijing - yet the regime seems to be doubling down.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anon1787 on April 25, 2022, 11:32:39 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on April 25, 2022, 04:09:08 PM
Does anyone have any insights into what China's leadership is doing? Surely they realize that, even if the Shanghai lockdown succeeds in bringing cases down to zero, in some weeks or months there'd be cases again, and even if they again succeeded in bringing cases down to zero with lockdowns, it's be the same thing again and again.
I guess part of it is saving face - doing a U-turn would be implicitly admitting their Covid policy is not, in fact, the best in the world, and there's the issue of their crappy vaccines.  But the financial, social and psychological costs are surely vast - and a regime that's long boasted its economic successes has literally brought hunger back to Shanghai. They're making seemingly zero effort to not traumatize children, meaning China will bear the consequences for many decades to come. Plus, the lockdown isn't even working, the omicron wave seems to be spreading to Beijing - yet the regime seems to be doubling down.

It's about saving face just like Putin can't afford to lose in Ukraine. There would be a loss of face if there were a major Covid outbreak in Beijing in the fall when Pooh Bear will seek to extend his reign beyond the customary 2 terms during the party congress.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Stockmann on April 26, 2022, 06:54:15 AM
I guess, but what baffles me is that both have alternatives. Totalitarian China could enact forced vaccinations (and get the adult vaccination rate past 99%) and could deploy mRNA vaccines while continuing masking and contact tracing, Putin could declare victory and withdraw (like the US did in Vietnam). Instead, Russia is effectively decimating its own military, and China is busy pursuing a policy that not just damages its own economy, but ensures that the damage will last. I don't want Ukrainians to suffer, nor even the average Chinese, but the one upside of this is that I'm more hopeful of my toddler living in a world where democracy is still a thing than I've been in a long time, with the world's two leading autocracies busy shooting themselves in the foot.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on April 26, 2022, 07:18:09 AM
I was just looking on a libertarian/right wing web site, which had an article on COVID policy.

I'm struck by how many of the people see COVID policy as an attempt to smuggle socialism into the US and undermine fundamental freedoms. They also have a fundamentally different take on the science than the "mainstream."

It's not surprising to me that there are people with such views, but rather how they exist in an almost parallel universe from the mainstream. Seems like the anger about lockdowns, forced vaccinations and mandated masks is not dying down.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: mamselle on April 26, 2022, 08:11:47 AM
Grumpy folks holed up in silos just get grumpier, they don't look for the exit.

M.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on April 26, 2022, 08:41:56 AM
Quote from: downer on April 26, 2022, 07:18:09 AM
I was just looking on a libertarian/right wing web site, which had an article on COVID policy.

I'm struck by how many of the people see COVID policy as an attempt to smuggle socialism into the US and undermine fundamental freedoms. They also have a fundamentally different take on the science than the "mainstream."

It's not surprising to me that there are people with such views, but rather how they exist in an almost parallel universe from the mainstream. Seems like the anger about lockdowns, forced vaccinations and mandated masks is not dying down.

Would you provide a link?

Thank you.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on April 26, 2022, 09:05:58 AM
I'm not enthusiastic about promoting the site. (https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/04/facing-faucis-fury.php) But you will find a link in this message if you look carefully. The comments section is, as ever, revealing.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: Anon1787 on April 26, 2022, 11:42:12 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on April 26, 2022, 06:54:15 AM
I guess, but what baffles me is that both have alternatives. Totalitarian China could enact forced vaccinations (and get the adult vaccination rate past 99%) and could deploy mRNA vaccines while continuing masking and contact tracing, Putin could declare victory and withdraw (like the US did in Vietnam). Instead, Russia is effectively decimating its own military, and China is busy pursuing a policy that not just damages its own economy, but ensures that the damage will last. I don't want Ukrainians to suffer, nor even the average Chinese, but the one upside of this is that I'm more hopeful of my toddler living in a world where democracy is still a thing than I've been in a long time, with the world's two leading autocracies busy shooting themselves in the foot.

Putin won't be satisfied with merely (falsely) declaring victory and suffer the humiliation of Vietnam like the U.S. or Afghanistan like the U.S.S.R. Likewise, effective vaccination would require using Western vaccines, which are not very effective at reducing the spread of Omicron, and relying primarily on vaccination would be seen as following a Western "let it rip" approach that is framed as being a failure as compared to Chinese exceptionalism. In short, your priors are not obviously more reasonable.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: downer on May 30, 2022, 07:42:22 AM
I was reading this piece in Fortune.
https://fortune.com/2022/05/22/us-in-sixth-covid-wave-cdc-map-confusing-community-transmission-levels-risk/

It seems clear now that COVID is endemic. Maybe half of Americans have had it. People can and do keep on getting it time after time -- possibly with increasing health effects. Maybe there will be new vaccines soon that protect specifically against the omicron variant, but that's not clear. Right now, at least 100,000 people are getting COVID every day, and maybe more like 500,000. With omicron, most people are out of commission for a few days and are testing negative after a week. Not many will be bothering to see a doctor.

There's clearly no popular support for mandatory measures. I don't even know if students enrolling this fall at places where I teach will be required to vaccinate.

But some people are still playing it very safe, continue with masking and social distancing. Some are still not getting on planes.

I guess the coming academic year will be still be about adjusting to the pandemic, with the realizations that these adjustments are no longer temporary. This is how it will be for the forseeable future, probably for remainder of our teaching careers.

For me, going to conferences remains a big issue. It's expensive and involves more risk than staying at home. It makes it pretty hard to justify.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: marshwiggle on May 30, 2022, 07:47:41 AM
Quote from: downer on May 30, 2022, 07:42:22 AM
I was reading this piece in Fortune.
https://fortune.com/2022/05/22/us-in-sixth-covid-wave-cdc-map-confusing-community-transmission-levels-risk/

It seems clear now that COVID is endemic. Maybe half of Americans have had it. People can and do keep on getting it time after time -- possibly with increasing health effects. Maybe there will be new vaccines soon that protect specifically against the omicron variant, but that's not clear. Right now, at least 100,000 people are getting COVID every day, and maybe more like 500,000. With omicron, most people are out of commission for a few days and are testing negative after a week. Not many will be bothering to see a doctor.

There's clearly no popular support for mandatory measures. I don't even know if students enrolling this fall at places where I teach will be required to vaccinate.

But some people are still playing it very safe, continue with masking and social distancing. Some are still not getting on planes.

I guess the coming academic year will be still be about adjusting to the pandemic, with the realizations that these adjustments are no longer temporary. This is how it will be for the forseeable future, probably for remainder of our teaching careers.

For me, going to conferences remains a big issue. It's expensive and involves more risk than staying at home. It makes it pretty hard to justify.

I think a lot of at least optional virtual attendance at meetings, conferences, etc. is going to be the norm in the future. Requiring in-person attendance has a lot of downsides even without covid issues. I don't think that genie can be stuffed back in the bottle.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: apl68 on June 21, 2022, 07:41:05 AM
Last week our church's Vacation Bible School (That's a multi-day church day-camp activity, for those who might not be familiar with the term) inadvertently became a super-spreader event.  It had to be shut down midway through.  Lots of families ended up having to isolate.  Fortunately there were no severe cases.  Sunday we cancelled Sunday school, but did have in-person worship.  Attendance at the face-to-face service was sparse, so there was plenty of room to distance.  Our Bible study group, whose members had all dodged COVID, was able to meet at my house Sunday evening as scheduled.  Late this week we're hoping to go back and finish the interrupted VBS events.

Really hoping that we don't have a surge in a couple of weeks that does something similar to our library summer day-camp that we have planned.  We have a big group enrolled, and we're making it the centerpiece of this year's return to face-to-face summer programming.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on June 21, 2022, 10:24:32 AM
Quote from: dismalist on April 26, 2022, 08:41:56 AM
Quote from: downer on April 26, 2022, 07:18:09 AM
I was just looking on a libertarian/right wing web site, which had an article on COVID policy.

I'm struck by how many of the people see COVID policy as an attempt to smuggle socialism into the US and undermine fundamental freedoms. They also have a fundamentally different take on the science than the "mainstream."

It's not surprising to me that there are people with such views, but rather how they exist in an almost parallel universe from the mainstream. Seems like the anger about lockdowns, forced vaccinations and mandated masks is not dying down.

Would you provide a link?

Thank you.

Quote from: downer on April 26, 2022, 09:05:58 AM
I'm not enthusiastic about promoting the site. (https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/04/facing-faucis-fury.php) But you will find a link in this message if you look carefully. The comments section is, as ever, revealing.

Found it! [No, I didn't spend all of the last two months looking, just some of that time. :-)]

Some of the comments on that website understandably lead one's hair to stand on end. But they miss the broader points, too.

Here is a link to the Professor Jay Bhattacharya, M.D. interview, extracted from that website, and linked to its original source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpnbMIOvbjc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpnbMIOvbjc)  A more reasoned and reasonable presentation about Covid policy one will not find.

Big mistake was shut downs for all instead of just for the vulnerable. The interview is long, so hard to summarize here, but includes discussion of political causes, vax, anti-vax, and beyond. It is well worth listening to.

[By the way, libertarian is not right wing. Me, I'm a left libertarian, e.g. :-)]

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on February 16, 2023, 12:18:53 PM
Discussion about Florida and deSantis Covid policy on the Florid thread led me to delve into death rates across States, looking for age adjusted death rates. It is true that Florida's age adjusted death rate is higher than California's, but just. But in looking, I came across this:

https://www.bioinformaticscro.com/blog/why-do-covid-deaths-vary-by-state/ (https://www.bioinformaticscro.com/blog/why-do-covid-deaths-vary-by-state/)

The top-line conclusion is:

QuoteVaccination rate is the single biggest predictor of age-adjusted deaths by state.
COVID deaths do not correlate with state stringency after adjusting for age and obesity rate.

["Stringency" refers to the severity of lockdown policies, for which there is an index.]

It's all quite intuitive, to me at least. Age, co-morbidity and non-vaccination of the aged have been the killers, not lack of lockdown.

A fun conclusion is:

QuoteOur analysis shows a very strong negative correlation between vaccination status and percent Trump vote.  Additionally, although there was a strong correlation between obesity and Trump vote, in a multivariate linear model with obesity, and vaccination over 65, percent Trump vote was not significantly associated with age-adjusted COVID deaths (P=0.76).

Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: secundem_artem on February 16, 2023, 01:09:50 PM
Quote from: dismalist on February 16, 2023, 12:18:53 PM
Discussion about Florida and deSantis Covid policy on the Florid thread led me to delve into death rates across States, looking for age adjusted death rates. It is true that Florida's age adjusted death rate is higher than California's, but just. But in looking, I came across this:

https://www.bioinformaticscro.com/blog/why-do-covid-deaths-vary-by-state/ (https://www.bioinformaticscro.com/blog/why-do-covid-deaths-vary-by-state/)

The top-line conclusion is:

QuoteVaccination rate is the single biggest predictor of age-adjusted deaths by state.
COVID deaths do not correlate with state stringency after adjusting for age and obesity rate.

["Stringency" refers to the severity of lockdown policies, for which there is an index.]

It's all quite intuitive, to me at least. Age, co-morbidity and non-vaccination of the aged have been the killers, not lack of lockdown.

A fun conclusion is:

QuoteOur analysis shows a very strong negative correlation between vaccination status and percent Trump vote.  Additionally, although there was a strong correlation between obesity and Trump vote, in a multivariate linear model with obesity, and vaccination over 65, percent Trump vote was not significantly associated with age-adjusted COVID deaths (P=0.76).

I'm not an economist (unlike the Dismal one here) but I dabble.  I've seen similar studies that show excess death in Republican districts.  And the gap got wider AFTER vaccines were available.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30512/w30512.pdf

From the abstract:

We estimate substantially higher excess death rates for registered Republicans when compared to registered Democrats, with almost all of the difference concentrated in the period after vaccines were widely available in our study states. Overall, the excess death rate for Republicans was 5.4 percentage points (pp), or 76%, higher than the excess death rate for Democrats. Post- vaccines, the excess death rate gap between Republicans and Democrats widened from 1.6 pp (22% of the Democrat excess death rate) to 10.4 pp (153% of the Democrat excess death rate). The gap in excess death rates between Republicans and Democrats is concentrated in counties with low vaccination rates and only materializes after vaccines became widely available.

In other words, Red = Dead and Blue = Yahoo!  Dying for your country is one thing.  Dying for your political party is an entirely different (and incredibly stoopid) animal.  OK, I've overstate the results, but you get the point.
Title: Re: Coronavirus
Post by: dismalist on February 16, 2023, 01:56:10 PM
It doesn't look like there's a contradiction. The nber paper does not attempt to control for obesity [which I take to be correlated with other comorbidities] nor for lockdown severity. Descriptively, the nber paper says Republicans go down the tubes on account they don't get vaccinated [in two states]. That is surely correct. The paper I linked to says nothing different [for fifty states]. It just says non obese Trump voters of a given age who got vaccinated die at the same rate as non-obese non-Trump voters of the same age who got vaccinated. :-)

Let's not lose sight of the big picture: Once a vaccine was available, defense against Covid became a private good  -- vax or die -- and one could reasonably not lock down. Before the vaccine, I was with Bhattacharya & Co. -- lock down for the vulnerable only, which, IIRC deSantis did not adhere to-- but after a vaccine the point is largely moot.