Coronavirus Discussion Thread XII

From VTGuitarman's previous thread:

The current situation facing all of us is unprecedented. While TKP is generally not a place to discuss "breaking news" or emotionally charged topics, obviously the coronavirus pandemic affects us all. We recognize that TKP is a place many of us turn to for social interaction in these trying times, and discussing the coronavirus can be cathartic for many of us. We hope that we can continue to come together as Hokies to weather this storm.

That said, the explosion of comments in recent discussions has veered from useful to pointless and argumentative. Going forward, only Joe and the moderator team will post new "general discussion" threads on this topic. Others will be deleted. Moderators will lock threads as needed if discussion becomes destructive.

We invite you to use this space to discuss important information related to the coronavirus pandemic, like important advisories, closings, cancelations, and impacts on daily life. We are lucky that our community has many subject matter experts in health, science, public safety, public affairs, and local government, among others. Please continue to share your knowledge!

As always, the Community Guidelines will be enforced by the moderators as best we can. At this point, repeat offenders who continue pointless bickering and whose posts continually incite arguments will be banned, at least temporarily. Doing so is in the interest of keeping TKP a strong and positive community.

Forums: 
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

Thread XI was becoming increasingly hostile and combative in tone.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

Missed the end of the last thread.

One comment I want to reply to though from GM
https://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/963796#comment-963796

Who lied? The recommendation changed because the situation changed. And if you paid enough attention, the reason for the initial guidance not to wear masks was fully explained.

This is not accurate. The reasons given were sound talking points but not truthful. Many, many officials have lied to the public and a lot of that had to do with controlling the message and because their was almost no supply at all. And it is not exclusive to either party. I have been on calls listening to how the message was framed. I have been called daily from governments trying to catch up on supply chains only to put barriers in front of supply for personal political and financial gains. USA's response to the pandemic is a shitshow of epic proportion whereby the "haves" ultimately controlled and are directly responsible for the deaths of the "have nots".

Those still questioning the effectiveness of masks and social distancing are blatantly ignoring the realities of how the virus is being controlled around the world. Here's what is working: those countries with centralized control measures and coordinated supply chains have proven effective, those that have no coordinated measure from central control or politicized the event have not.

I'm not trying to cause immediate divisiveness here but I said as much over a month ago and the reply was "well China's response is ahead of the USA so by that time it should be controlled here." Well here we are. Ask yourself, is it controlled? Or are cases spiking again?

But I don't blame naysayers or those that have trouble believing it, because as I replied to GM the US population has been lied to daily. Even today the message is unintelligible where our lead scientist is saying one thing while our leader(s) are saying another. Not to mention the "paid for" science by lobbyists that is also going on confusing the messaging. So for those that still don't believe stop trying to rationalize the message in the States and look objectively at the statistics globally.

And here is another bit of info. I have been sourcing food for the US market for the past 5 weeks. July and Aug are a pivotal stretch for the US food chain, a lot that is closer to the edge than people know. Control plans are trying to take effect, but you should be extra mindful during these two months.

you should be extra mindful during these two months.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

Yes, I concur with the reply above. Is it possible for you to elaborate, or at least make a more detailed recommendation of what "being mindful" should mean, based on your knowledge and experience?

Don't go crazy and horde but friendly suggestion that you may want to go out now and beat crowds to buy enough non-perishable food to let you avoid the market for the next two months or for as long as possible. If you have heavy freezer stock up on meat etc.

There is a lot of stuff going on to secure food supply at the moment but just want to let everyone here know that certain parts of the supply chain are extremely strained. In the case that something more were to affect the supply chain there will be shortages, or rather more widespread shortages.

I know it may be too late for some people but that's why I have advocated for people to garden and grow vegetables. I know it's not everyone cup of tea but with supply chain going to be hit, having a garden could be a lifeline.

Unfortunately resources are also tight for those who have lost jobs and it makes it difficult to decide where to spend money on.

So, my wife and I have discussed getting a chest freezer multiple times over the last few years. Now seemed like as good of a time as any! I went looking for a small freezer (5.0 cu ft) since we just want to marginally expand on the refrigerator freezer that has mostly served us fine. I could not find a 5.0 - 7.0 cu ft chest freezer anywhere. As a matter of fact, the only one I saw was a single 20+ cu ft at Best Buy. I checked Costco, Best Buy, Lowes, Home Depot, Habitat for Humanity ReStore, and East Coast Appliances. Nothing. Even Amazon is sold out. The online stores won't even let you add the item to your cart.

If anyone has a small chest freezer that they are looking to unload, let me know!

it may not work for your space but there are some small footprint upright freezers out there under 10 cu ft

Have you checked Facebook marketplace or Craigslist? I recently saw a bunch for sale near me.

What industry are you in? Before I thought it was architecture or civil. Now it sounds like manufacturing and supply chain?

Recruit Prosim

I own a few companies. My design firm was bought buy a large american firm and I am still partner in it. Have been busy with that as well.

But I have had a trading company for 10 years now and since the pandemic started have been sourcing PPE to US market.

While my comment may have been unintentionally broad, my main point was an argument defending Dr. Fauci against an argument that he was inventing reasons for masks vs. no masks. Distribution of PPE has been an issue here and that's all I was really maintaining. The CDC guidance followed what he was saying. Plenty of politicians have lied but that's not a discussion to be had here.

Yeah apologies. I should have been clear that I understood the difference in what you were saying and my point. My bad GM.

All good, bud. Just wanted to bring over a little context to this thread in case people don't want to sort through the last one. We covered a lot of ground yesterday.

I agree that we were lied to. There were good intentions swimming through a cess pool of political grandstanding (regardless or sides). But, the past has passed. There is truth out there for anybody with the time and ambition to research it. But it baffles me that the US has not attempted a better, more cohesive PR campaign to reach out to those that do not research it for themselves.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Too many divisive interests to be cohesive unfortunately. Even various levels of government have been competing against each other to buy PPE. With a clusterfuck like that going on there's no way a singular PR campaign is going to happen.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-coronavirus-icu-bed-repor...

Here in Florida we are not getting the full data set about bed use and capacity. (It doesn't matter why someone is in an ICU bed, if that bed is occupied it can't be used by another patient). South Florida, along with some areas of Tampa and Orlando are seeing worrying increases in both hospital admissions and ICU bed use for COVID patients and "return to normal patients" who also take up beds. We also are seeing a positive test rate go up dramatically.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

I know in our local hospital that was designated a COVID unit (it has since been reverted back to standard), the ICU was used to house all the patients given that they were already set up with negative air and infectious controls. In order to meet additional demand, standard rooms were temporarily set up with negative air machines to aid in infection control. If ICU rooms are being used to treat patients that don't need intensive care, it's likely those patients would be moved to other areas to allow for intensive care to be administered if needed. It just makes sense from an operational standpoint to utilize those rooms first as they provide better isolation. Not that this resolves the whole issue, but there's likely some room to make additional accommodations for ICU patients if needed.

Since I am Florida-centric, hospitalizations in FL are up in the neighborhood of 60% since June 6; mortalities starting to track that direction as well over the last few days. I think there are now at least 6 FL counties (Hillsborough, Pasco, Pinellas, Orange, Osceola, and Leon) with mask ordinances in place along with several municipalities in the Miami area. IMO, this trend will continue.

And since Fireman and I are St Johns-centric, I'll note (and I'm sure he knows this) that our daily case increase is up 10X in the last 2 weeks. I don't think the County has the political will to go to a mask ordinance but I could see St Augustine/St Aug Beach doing it. We'll see.

St. John's county has been awful this entire time. No leadership from our new county manager (who is too young and has no experience but political) or our elected county commissioners. I think St. Augustine will but Jacksonville won't because Curry courting the convention.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Curry is between a rock and a hard place. Economically, the convention should be a boon and perhaps help people forget the JEA debacle. But if the hospitals fill up, he'll be damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. If Ponte Vedra was in Duval or Avondale was in Clay, he'd have a little more room to operate...but they aren't.

Don't think it's going to be a boon. They just dropped number of people attending to less than 30k.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

My wife had her American Sign Language class for VT cancelled this fall. What's the words on the grounds regarding this fall semester?

What's the words on the grounds

No idea, that sounds like a UVA thing ;)

Right now, VT is planning for hybrid instruction. Most classes will be online or at least partially online. Classes will be held in person if classroom occupancy does not exceed 25% and physical distancing can be maintained. Students will have assigned seats for the purposes of contact tracing. Expect about 2/3 of classes to be fully online. Departments have recently submitted requests to the provost's office for classes they deem essential for in-person instruction (think labs and any "critical" courses). Ultimately, the provost and registrar will work together to determine which classes can be held in person based on these requests.

There will be longer times between classes to allow for hallways to clear before students crowd in for the next class. Expect one-way hallways, and dedicated entrances/exits to all buildings, as well. Classes will be held starting earlier and ending later to accommodate more sections and the longer between-class times.

Masks will be required for everyone in classrooms, and faculty will have the power to compel students to wear a mask. Failure to adhere to the requirement will result in either the student's removal from the classroom or the class will move online if there is consistent non-compliance. Exceptions will be made for documented medical requirements through the Dean of Students office.

You will see lots of plexiglass on campus, in offices and common areas, to keep people separated. Dining halls will have reduced seating and will emphasize grab-and-go and Tapingo ordering.

Students on the Blacksburg campus will be required to sign some form of conduct/health agreement. I do not know what that will entail, but if I were to guess, you should expect that if you're found at a party in Foxridge, you probably won't like the consequences.

...but if I were to guess, you should expect that if you're found at a party in Foxridge, you probably won't like the consequences.

Oh man... that is going to be problematic for the university and Blacksburg police department.

Just got back yesterday evening from Garden City and I don't see how that area doesn't get shut down at some point soon due to the rise is cases coming from the Myrtle area. We went prior to this article coming out thinking that due to the economic hit, there would be few people down there and that those that would be down there would be wearing mask/social distancing. Unfortunately it pretty much looked like a typical summer week down there. A lot of families, but also large groups of high school/college age kids with maybe 5-10% actually wearing mask/social distancing. We ended up using curbside take out for the majority of meals and what time we did spend out of the hotel, we wore mask and tried to stay as far away from people as we could. The Ripley's Aquarium seemed to be the only place that required a mask for entrance, but we ended up not going in because the line was ridiculously long to get in.

The most annoying thing was trying to fish on the pier. Pretty much everyone fishing was doing a good job of distancing; however, there was a resident black tip shark that would circle the pier. Anytime it surfaced, people walking the pier would huddle up to look at it with not regard to who they were encroaching on.

Lesson learned. Don't vacation during a pandemic and don't assume people are going to do the responsible thing. With recently buying our first home, at least we will have things to keep us occupied while we quarantine.

When people are vacationing, personal joy is the only thing that matters. It is why in the best of times we spend stupid money on tourist things and why in pandemic times people cant be expected to be rational. So yeah, we flirted with the idea of a trip to the beach this summer but decided against it.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Ars Technica: The White House ordered the National Institute of Health to cancel funding for COVID research.

The National Institutes of Health abruptly cut off funding to a long-standing, well-regarded research project on bat coronaviruses only after the White House specifically told it to do so, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Fauci made the revelation Tuesday at a Congressional hearing on the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is caused by a coronavirus that is genetically linked to those found in bats. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) asked Fauci why the NIH abruptly canceled funding for the project, which specifically worked to understand the risk of bat coronaviruses jumping to humans and causing devastating disease.

Fauci responded to Veasey saying: "It was cancelled because the NIH was told to cancel it."

"And why were they told to cancel it?" Veasey pressed.

"I don't know the reason, but we were told to cancel it," Fauci said.

...

Following Dr. Fauci's revelations Tuesday, EcoHealth President Peter Daszak tweeted that it was an "obvious case of political interference."

"Eventually, we'll all know the shoddy truth of how a conspiracy theory pushed by this administration led @NIHDirector to block the only US research group still working in China to analyze COVID origins," he wrote. "Thanks to this China can now do the research, we can't!"

Scientists, meanwhile, have roundly refuted claims that the WIV was the source of the new coronavirus, noting that natural spillover from animals is the most likely source.

This combined with the revelation yesterday that the White House has ordered the cancellation of federal funding of 13 COVID testing facilities in Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Colorado... Things are not looking good at all in the US. Cases are spiking, we have Phased openings that are heavily dependent on seeing the number of cases stabilize or decline before progressing to the next stage (according to the plans from the initial proposals of these phases, that is) and now it looks like we're trying to game that system by just not testing anyone anymore and then cutting off funding into the research on trying to learn more about it.

It very much looks like our official stance on this disease from the top is "if we pretend it doesn't exist, it won't be a problem anymore".

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

So, your title says 'The White House ordered the National Institute of Health to cancel all funding for COVID research. But the article makes it seem like one project was canceled. Not saying that this project was unimportant, but to me it appears that there's definitely a difference.

Twitter me

Grr... thought I caught that, thanks

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Free NYT Article on the spread of the Virus

How the Virus Won

Couple takeaways.... While we know Seattle was the first outbreak in the US, at this point, the vast majority of current cases can be traced back to the outbreak in NYC as that gene sequence has become the dominant one in the US. And the critical period between when cases were uncovered in NYC where the populace was encouraged to go about their days and live their lives as normal is the time period where it got out of NYC and infected upstate NY as well as traveled to NO for Mardi Gras. That spread to NO is what kicked off the outbreak throughout the Southeast. Pretty much at every step of the process when we've moved to lock down or restrict travel, we've been about 2 weeks behind the point where it would have actually done any good. By the time we've been acting its already been too late and the spread had already happened. And, outside of the Northeast, when we went to quarantine measures back in March, we didn't do nearly enough to lock it down, and now we're seeing the result of it with the spike in cases when we are trying to open back up.

Basically, this is all going to get a hell of a lot worse before it gets better unless we ramp up testing to get a really good picture of how and how fast it is currently spreading.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

On vacation this week and went to the Jersey shore for a couple of day trips. Of all the things that have been up-ended the last few months, one little thing that really stood out to me was that gasoline prices at or near the shore were much lower than in the Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia - in late June. Man, never thought I would see that. Plenty of people on the beach at Wildwood Crest, but plenty of space. Water was too cool for most, so not many people went in and the large beach allowed for ample spacing. Did not go to the boardwalk and don't know how the Tuesday and Wednesday crowds will compare with weekend crowds, but did not feel the slightest bit concerned there.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-says-covid-19-cases-u-s-m...

"Our best estimate right now is that for every case that's reported, there actually are 10 other infections," CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield said on a call with reporters Thursday.

The estimate comes from looking at blood samples across the country for the presence of antibodies to the virus. For every confirmed case of COVID-19, 10 more people had antibodies, Redfield said.

Currently, there are 2.3 million COVID-19 cases reported in the U.S. The CDC's new estimate pushes the actual number of coronavirus cases up to at least 23 million.

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

This is good news. It means that as more people are being tested without symptoms, more positives will be reported. A rise in positives (the easiest thing reported) does not necessarily mean an increase in spread. The bad news is that for every sick person out there that is spreading the virus, 10 more are spreading it without knowing (although there seems to be a lot of debate regarding how infectious an asymptomatic person is relative to pre-symptomatic or actively symptomatic)

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

Seriously, why would this be bad? If way more people have this than we suspect, and our critical illness and hospitalization rates are what they currently are, wouldn't this mean, generally speaking, the disease is much less severe than current prevailing opinion, or that we're a lot closer to herd immunity than we thought? I'm not really well educated in the specifics of disease and epidemiology. Hoping to learn something...

This is why it is bad. Herd Immunity as a plan has not proven effective anywhere:

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-hopes-fade-for-swedens-herd-...
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-what-happened-in-sweden-and...
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2020/06/how-sweden-s-herd-immu...

It can be tempting to think that Sweden's approach might work elsewhere, including the United States, but it's not as straightforward as eliminating all stay-at-home restrictions.

"Different countries have different challenges and preexisting healthcare systems," Khan said. "So your response is largely determined by [those], as well as the conditions of your particular COVID-19 pandemic."

One important factor is demographics.

Sweden is more sparsely populated than the United States β€” even more so if you look at New York City, which was especially hard-hit by the new coronavirus.

Over half of Swedes live in single-person households, which makes it easier to do physical distancing.

Compare this with the United States, where just 28 percent of adults live alone. And many Americans live in multigenerational households, where the new coronavirus can easily spread from young people to older adults.

The United States also has higher rates of chronic diseases that increase the risk of severe COVID-19.

Also your comment:

If way more people have this than we suspect, and our critical illness and hospitalization rates are what they currently are, wouldn't this mean, generally speaking, the disease is much less severe than current prevailing opinion,

No. It doesn't mean it is less severe. It means it is more severe.
1) More people having it than we know does not translate directly into hospitalization rates because of the asymptomatic nature of the disease. When hospitalization occurs doesn't follow a set timeline or incubation period so it could increase dramatically at any time (as it has over the past two weeks) or it could hold steady for long period of time and peak gradually. It cannot be accurately predicted.
2) The amount of beds is disparate by county. So when a state, for example Texas, claims they have an abundance of beds to accommodate surges this does not demonstrate that in many rural hospitals even 5 or 6 ICU patients is too many. If rural hospitals are overwhelmed then mass relocation needs to happen which is both extremely costly and inefficient.

If 10 for every 1 is in fact true and the unpredictable incubation of the disease remains constant then the spread of the disease is more rampant than we knew. From that point, It could be growing, It could be shrinking. The US doesn't accurately know because data is skewed and unreliable. If it continues to grow and hospitalization surges happen then the US system is in for a world of hurt.

I guess I'm too dense to understand. I spend more time figuring out building enclosure details than studying epidemiology.

I'm going to use fake numbers for the sake of discussion.

If we assume 1,000,000 million people have the disease, and we have x number of deaths and y number of hospitalizations, we can infer a certain rate of these outcomes. Let's also assume we have this "data" over a period of 4 months. Then say we realize the data isn't accurate and instead of 1,000,000 infections, we now actually believe there to be 20,000,000. The number of deaths and hospitalizations hasn't changed, but the total cases has. Wouldn't this mean there are far more minor or asymptomatic cases, meaning the odds of a severe outcome go down?

Unless you are suggesting, or perhaps the data that you understand better than I do is proving, that we can't infer anything regarding the severe case rate from the last 4 months. If that is the case, why? Why do we look at the number of severe outcomes over the last four months and conclude that we can't use that as a baseline for determining the likelihood of having such an outcome? Do asymptomatic cases randomly become severely negative outcomes unpredictably? If so, I haven't heard that.

Not trying to be argumentative, simply trying to understand.

A very large issue here is that the data is not reliable. Every State is reporting differently. There is no widespread testing to know how many people are out there that should be in hospital or even to be monitored. There is also no contact tracing of any real measure to understand how peaks have influenced the spread and at what rates that spread is symptomatic or asymptomatic. If you don't have reliable information on any of that how would you be able to infer that more people having the virus means a less severe outcome?

Conversely if the 10 for 1 is true then the virus is accelerating faster than thought and it's unpredictable nature could at any time spike.

here are some relevant articles regarding the current spikes in hospitalizations:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/17/rising-covid-19-cases-hospitalizatio...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/23/coronavirus-live-update...

Now, the state is regularly reporting more than 1,000 new cases a day, compared to a few hundred in May. Hospitalizations are up. There isn't enough contact tracing in place to try to get a hold of the outbreak, Ernst said.

"As cases are going up, you're just getting further and further behind the curve," she said. "If you don't have all of the things in place, the contact tracing folks trained and operating seamlessly, the more cases will ramp up. And you just keep trying to catch up."

Cases are currently surging in about half the States where they previously showed low hospitalization rates. There is no contact tracing, or very little and minimal widespread testing.

Data in the US currently, to be harsh, is an estimate at best. Not accurate in any way. Reporting to date is based on what is known and what is known is not enough.

Thanks for continuing the dialog. I still don't really understand and probably won't understand. Probably going to bow out of this thread like the others.

no worries. Much more likely I'm not being clear enough. I'm not a scientist. I just have some inside marinades on this whole thing

if the numbers are accurate (unlikely, but for the math let's assume it is), 125,000 deaths divided by 23 million infections is .54%. if 2/3 of the population needs to be immune via infection to achieve so called herd immunity, .54% of 220 million is 1.18 million fatalities. I don't think a majority of the American public is ready for that, not with the state of modern medicine we've all grown up with.

I don't have a concealed carry permit but if those were the chances of harm I was facing from criminals on the street, I'd be armed to the teeth. For covid, I'm definitely wearing a mask, and I want my community leaders to be doing everything they can to get as many people as possible to do it, too; even if it is an inconvenience. Frankly, a mask ordinance until we get a vaccine or effective treatment is about as nothing as it gets.

Not to mention that the death rate is probably much higher than that because for a long time they did not test people retroactively that already died but didn't go to the doctor or hadn't gotten a test. Also the number of pneumonia and common flu deaths are off the charts compared to normal years, as further evidence of undiagnosed covid deaths.

Combine this with the quality of care going down when hospitals are overrun and it means there would probably be way more deaths than 1.2 million if it ran through the whole population.

My view point has been very similar to WildTurkey's, and I'm still curious to understand as well. I think I'm tracking, though I'm not sure... Here are my takeaways:

  • Due to the lack of data, we're stuck reacting rather than being proactive - My understanding is that this is issue #1.
  • In general, it's better if this virus to have a 1% death rate and impact 1 million people than have a 0.005% death rate, but impact 300 million people.
  • As more people get the virus, the more we're hurt by the lack of data, because it forces us to be more reactive.

Am I right here?

The thing I'm still struggling on are how this only seems to impact a small subset of people. It seems to me that if (1) everyone wears a mask in public, and (2) businesses offer special times dedicated only to at risk individuals (or those who live/care for at risk individuals) and (3) those at risk stay home as much possible, that the rest of us should be able to go about our daily lives with little risk.

Am I underestimating the risk for healthy people under the age of 65?

Now, that said, I do recognize that there is a chunk of the population who is at risk, but does not have the luxury of staying home (mostly financial reasons). But what percent of the population is this? How much does it cost to equip these people with the necessary PPE to do their job?

Twitter me

To the point about risk, it depends on your definition. Everyone has about the same chance of getting sick (higher if you've got an underlying condition) but younger people are less likely to die. However, in California for example, I just heard on the news that 40% of their new cases are people age 18-40. They will likely survive, but how many more will they infect? The perception of safety ("oh I will survive if I get sick") is driving younger people to take more risks. That will increase spread and undoubtedly endanger many others.

Wholeheartedly agree, and this goes back to my frustration about how risk has been communicated. As a 30 year old in great shape and no underlying health conditions, the chances of me dying from Covid are close to astronomical. But what about ICU hospitalization? What about permanent lung damage? What about being dreadfully sick for 2 weeks?

I get that we only have information for those who were tested, but from that, we should still be able to break down by severity, age, and known conditions.

Twitter me

Thanks for posting this. This helps me put into words better what I was thinking previously.

I have been operating under the assumption that I think we'll end up closer to the 300 million infections than I think we'll end up at 30 million. I just don't see enough people paying attention this to feel confident we're going to stem the tide so to speak.

So given my frame of reference, it's somewhat easier to see how I came to the conclusion this is less severe, in my assumed scenario, due to a potentially lower case fatality rate.

That being said, I can also see the viewpoint that this is more severe in that more people are going to get it than what some may have predicted, so even though the case fatality rate may be lower than originally thought, the increased transmission is going to kill more people than a higher case fatality rate but lower transmission.

I think I understand the various points made previously. Either way, it's definitely looking a bit more frightening as we move forward.

Side note, someone tested positive at my wife's office (different departments, no direct contact), but they said for her to get tested anyway. Results came back negatively thankfully.

I think John Hopkins University has the best grasp on data tracking and it isn't pretty to look at.

Well said.

a big challenge in setting the public policy for covid is keeping the most vulnerable isolated from the least vulnerable. Yes, not all old people who get it die, and not all young people skate thru; but the odds of the different demographics/medical conditions vary greatly. The more carriers we have that aren't aware that they are carriers ( and we aren't aware they are carriers), the greater the chance of contacting someone who will be severely impacted.

re: herd immunity...23 million sounds like a lot, until we consider that 120 to 300 million might be the figure that needs to be achieved

It is bad because it means we are doing a crap job of tracking the virus.
It's bad because I t means that we can't take an intelligent approach to protecting the most vulnerable.

It's bad because people with no symptoms could pass it on after passing feel good screening efforts like taking temperatures before you enter a nursing home.

It's bad because 23 million is still less than 10% of the country's population and the more people have it, the faster it spreads. Our hospitalization rates may be acceptable now, but with this many people infecting others, one would expect it to quickly become unacceptable as a chunk of the remaining 93% of the country catch it.

As I understood it, the danger with COVID-19 has never been "if you get it, you die, period." It's been "if you get it, you'll likely pass it to 3 other people which will quickly balloon into tens of thousands of cases and the 0.5% fatality (or whatever) starts to mean significant numbers of deaths."

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

It is good and its bad, but i think the bad outweighs the good. It is counter-intuitive.

Very simply it boils down to a simple equation:

Deaths = (# of infected*R0) x infection fatality rate (IFR)

The second part of the equation (IFR) is now lower by a factor of 10. Great! But is a linear change to the equation.

The first part of the equation is now higher because there are drastically more cases and the virus spreads more efficiently. Unfortunately, the first part of equation grows exponentially.

I would much rather the exponentially growing part of the equation to be lower than the linear part. I guess if we had figured out how to control the spread of the virus and things were petering out it could be a net good thing. But we aren't there right now. Hope that helps make some sense at a very basic levels. Obviously it is waaay more complicated than that.

I think another way of saying this is:

If cases are low with our current fatality rate, there's a chance we might make it to when a vaccine is available without a significant percentage of Americans catching covid.

Of cases are high with a lower fatality rate, then there's a greater chance that covid will be spread to almost everybody, and the greater (exponential) spread would overcome the lower fatality rate.

This would all depend, of course, on what percentage has been infected to date, and how long until a vaccine is available. But bottom line, a slower spread can be handled much more easily (assuming people buy in, which is decidedly not happening in a lot of places).

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

I dont think we know enough to do that math accurately. How infectious is a person that is asymptomatic? Why are some people asymptomatic?

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

That is the big mystery here.

In FL, hospitalizations and death trends indicate an increase in spread.

I tend to look at this in simple terms. There are a certain number of people within the population that are most vulnerable to the effects of the disease and while the odds vary, it is a role of the dice for each of us. More people carrying the disease increases the likelihood that one of these vulnerable people will be exposed to potential infection. I don't care how old the carrier is; I don't care if it takes a lot of contact or a little; there are more contact points in the community and the more there are, the greater my chances of coming in contact with one every time I leave the house.

When only symptomatic people were being tested, the "case" figures were perhaps a useful index of spread/severity. I now focus more on hospitalizations and deaths as measures of impact on health (I wish there were figures on sub-lethal effects). The figures are more readily available than they were early on, they are easy to understand, and they relate directly to the effectiveness of mitigation efforts.

Keep in mind that some of the death are also being accelerated for those who had pre-existing health conditions such as compromised immunity from cancer, or those who are diabetics. The CDC has been pretty consistent in this regard.

I try my best to maintain social distancing while wearing a mask, but the lax attitude I am seeing in Christiansburg is alarming and discouraging, to say the least.

That is a great resource.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

https://www.richmond.com/sports/high-school/vhsl-director-if-virginia-st...

"While we're in Phase Three, we're still talking about social distancing," Haun said. "I don't understand how you think about playing team sports while you're social distancing. It doesn't seem to add up to me that you can do that."

No high school fall sports a potential.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

With the number of cases, especially within sports organizations, I'm not sure you're gonna see ANY team sports for a year. Heck, even golf has been hit with cases.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

So Tennis might survive. :)

I think if they limit HS sports, it should be evaluated on a case by case basis and allow the individual sports to come up with new methods to keep safe.

For instance, Cross Country running, outdoor track sports, golf and host of other individual sports would be easy. I mean if each team brings their own discus...
Indoor team sports would be the toughest to do. Perhaps those people can figure that out.

I fear though that they will lay out another blanket ban.
I did find out last night that my friend will be able to run the Badwater Ultra Marathon next month, they figured it out.

https://www.badwater.com/event/badwater-135/

If you want someone to cheer for, Amy Costa.

http://dbase.adventurecorps.com/individualTd.php?e=7489

This is going to be great for the ACC.

Even with "spacing" sports, I'm sure you'll see blanket order.
A)You'll have a ton of kids all of a sudden running cross country/trying to play golf if everything else is cancelled. And
B)They still have to ride the bus to get to meets/event.
I don't think they would pick and choose, it'll be all or nothing.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

The kids need something. I would be happy if the whole football team ran cross country instead. Of course I am still holding out hope there is football.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Just because "the kids need something" doesn't mean they get to ignore social distancing, or ignore the dangers of the virus...

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Yes but cross country would be relatively safe and if the biggest problem is transportation, I am sure it can be solved.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

It would be would relatively safe until each schools football team swells cross country numbers.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

If we can't get on board with the level of safety that a group of high school kids could work under while running with separation outside, we are in big big trouble. Again, if the transportation is the concern, there are plenty of solutions. If grouped starts is a concern, launch individually and use chips for timing.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Is there going to be a new cross country classification, Defensive tackle/Offense Tackle class? Will it be called Heck?

Stop hitting me with these negative waves, Moriarty.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

Nah. There are lots of ways around all the kids riding a bus and all starting at the same time. Staggered starts, etc.

The crowd has lots of experience and creativity.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

26% increase in less than a week in Montgomery County. All without students and still in phase 2. Something to keep an eye on.

Reports are Montgomery County's spike is almost all related to a bunch of idiots who went to Myrtle Beach and brought it back.

Yeah, I talked about that in the previous thread. Brought it back and then partied in Blacksburg knowing they had been exposed but were waiting for test results

This is the kind of thing that will influence the conduct agreement I referenced above. If VT administrators see that a few stupid actions lead to this kind of outcome, they are going to hammer anyone who engages in risky behavior. Hopefully most students take this situation seriously; if there is an outbreak on campus this fall, our local hospital system will not be able to keep up.

Great. Just great, with me expecting to return to the plant in Blacksburg, I am going to be feeling anxiety daily.

Are you at Federal Mogul?

Recruit Prosim

Moog.

So as a 1980s Moog synthesizer fan, what do you make there? Seen the place for years, but never really had a way to figure out if they're connected to *the* Moog.

Wait, what?

https://www.moog.com/

We produce a lot of parts used in military, aerospace, industrial, and medical applications.

Oh, boring, useful, practical, profitable stuff.

Except servos. I like the sound they make.

Wait, what?

Based on the stupidity that I heard was in play this time around, I hope VT takes it seriously. Blacksburg can't handle an outbreak, you're right.

I'm sorry but if I'm the governor I will be compelled to order a roll back to Phase I. We are moving too fast because the concern is mainly economic and not safety.

Does it help you feel any better that he's not going to be giving weekly briefings any more? Only if they're needed. Sigh...

He was doing a really good job imo. But now, entering phase 3 as other states move back a phase and ALSO not holding briefings anymore and he's not doing a good job.

No. It does not and I think he's being politically pressured to not follow other states in rolling back the phase.

Not trying to start an argument here, but from whom? He's a one term governor and the legislature is controlled by his party, so where's the political pressure coming from?

Reel men fish on Wednesdays

I did say, "I think...."

Oh, I was just wondering, not a big deal just curious. I think he's under tremendous pressure to open things up from many directions, but hadn't thought about the political thing given his relative strength and popularity right now in Va.

Reel men fish on Wednesdays

Papa Bloomberg

Recruit Prosim

Well, at least it isn't Comrade Putin.

Reel men fish on Wednesdays

I'm not aware of any politicians being bought by Putin. Care to name someone?

Recruit Prosim

I feel like I'm being singled out here

Recruit Prosim

I don't see how Nocatee isnt going to be a hotspot soon. The PARC group just opened all the activities back open.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

good chance; **081 is in the 60's, so that passes us and it's a much smaller area

I got tested today because I was in my hometown last weekend where there has been a pretty prominent spike despite it being such a small area. I feel fine, aside from the allergies that I always deal with. That test was one of the strangest things I've ever felt, though. It was wildly uncomfortable.

A question for those more knowledgeable than me: are we perhaps building herd immunity faster than we realize? With the amount of positive tests for people who are asymptomatic, it makes me wonder how many people have it or have had it and never got tested because they never felt the need to.

Marshall University graduate.
Virginia Tech fanatic.
Formerly known as JWillHokieAlum.

Herd immunity is 60% or more having been infected. Ask Sweden how that's going. Yesterday the CDC director said there may be 10x more infections than we know of based on antibody testing, but that means somewhere in the ballpark of 25 million Americans, which is still around only 10% of our population. So while we are likely seeing faster spread, we are nowhere near herd immunity.

Relying on herd immunity will be brutal in terms of deaths, probably over 1 million. The term itself comes from livestock infections in which the outcome is gauged by how much death is acceptable before the loss is unprofitable. Again, brutal.

Also worth noting that those experiencing mild symptoms appear to not be gaining a robust immunity: Nature Medicine Manuscript

It's a weird phenomenon, really. The amount of virus in symptomatic and asymptomatic people are the same. The amount of antibodies produced are vastly different, with asymptomatic individuals creating very low amount of antibodies.

Considering the percentage of asymptomatic and paucisymptomatic cases, herd immunity would seem impossible without a vaccine that stimulates a more robust response.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

Unraveling the molecular and immunological mechanisms at play will be fascinating. This virus breaks so many norms.

Yea. Those results suggest that creating a vaccine that works for everyone may be really challenging. At least, in theory, those that would be most drastically affected by an infection should vaccinate well whereas those that would be mildly affected may not vaccinate well. IDK, I guess we'll see in the results in these clinical trials.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

My test came back negative along with the rest of my family who were briefly around my younger sister who got it. We knew it was a low chance because we were around her briefly and she wasn't symptomatic at that time, but we wanted to make sure for the sake of other people we were around.

That's good to hear. How is your sister handling it? About how far into it is she (days since showing symptoms)?

Luckily for her, she and her friends are 22 and ~22. It's been hard to get clear information on whether they actually had symptoms or not (gotten most of my info secondhand from parents), but whatever the case she is fine now so thats good news. She is still quarantining though from the family as her positive test came back last Saturday.

Check the date on the story. It's over a month old. If you doubt the CDC numbers, follow Johns Hopkins. They're doing their own data collection from different sources.

I like Johns Hopkins as well. Certain spot in my heart for them.
They have lots of data from lots of sources.
It was single example.
Just that. 1 example that illustrates what I have been complaining about for months.
Poor reporting due to mixing of tests and goals of those tests.

Apparently the data the Johns Hopkins is getting, is poor as it mixed from nasal swabs and blood.
If I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong, please.

The tests mean almost nothing and policy is being formed on the back of what is openly wrong info.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

It's impossible for me to verify every source of data from every county they include. So I won't. I merely pointed out that you were reporting outdated information. After those conflated numbers got outed in news reports, it is my understanding that reporting became better by and large.

Bottom line is cases are increasing again, with particularly bad surges in several states. That's irrefutable. Arizona's ICUs are filling. Texas' largest medical center is converting various facilities into ICUs. Florida, Texas, and other states are reversing their opening plans. The obvious evidence of increased spread is there. The exact numbers don't matter too much in light of that.

I read today that Houston's ICUs are maxed out. Not good.

Quick update from Dare County

Our first case was reported March 29. From March 29 through June 21 (12 weeks) we had 49 confirmed cases. From June 22 through today (7 days), we've added 44 more cases. I will be shocked if we make it through the summer without closing the bridges again.

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

Yeah, Montgomery County is in a similar boat. Have had 46 cases in 9 days. Previous 46 cases took 53 days. Phase 3 and July 4 right around the corner is concerning for this area, imo. 24060 zip code has a 7% positivity rate right now which is well above the state average.

We will see how VT handles this recent surge when it comes to fall semester announcements.

We have our beach trip to Kill Devil Hills scheduled for the last week in July. We are on the fence about going but if we did, we would likely just order take out and sit on the deck/beach. Are renters in full vacation mode and not taking social distancing measures seriously?

I'm leaving for the beach tomorrow but its for the beach.
I have no intent of swapping spit in a mosh pit or going to busy restaurants.

I have no undue concerns because I will use prudence and thought.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

This is where we're at for our HH trip 7/11.

That is our plan too. We have a beach front house so daily routine of go to beach, order take out and drink on the deck at night. My concern wasn't about my family getting sick since cases are worse where we live. I was more interested to see if people lose the mask on vacation and cases spike. Then OBX closes the bridges again before our trip.

We rent a condo with a deck and my cousin's house has a private beach.
I'm bringing most of the food I need to cook for the week and will stop along the way at Farmer's mkt for all my fresh veggies.

I'll bring most of my beer and liquor requirements. Maybe a couple nights of delivery pizza and such.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

We had that week booked for Topsail this year, but ultimately cancelled. It wasn't easy, it took someone else renting that week to get our deposit (half) back.

We would have been fine going, I think, due to the isolation potential there, but my niece is undergoing chemotherapy for leukemia, so she (and my sister) wouldn't be able to go, so we just called it off.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

I had a trip booked for Gatlinburg for the 1st week of August but ended up cancelling. Hated to do it, since my 6 year old has been pretty well stuck at home since school let out in March, but seeing cases skyrocket, it's just too risky IMO

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

Yeah, Gatlinburg is too much inside stuff for me, at this time.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

We went to Topsail a couple weeks ago. I understand calling it off, but if you rented a house on the beach, you can do it very safely. We brought almost all of our food and alcohol down with us and didn't go anywhere other than the beach right in front of us and the deck of the house. It was very easy to stay 15-20' away from our nearest neighbor. The only problem was if you did need to get anything, mask usage was abysmal. Especially at local places like the fish market and bait shop, which were my only outings.

We did have a house on the beach, but it was really about being able to ensure that the house was fully disinfected. We weren't confident in the cleaning company, and weren't confident in being able to do it ourselves.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Is secondary transfer like that still a concern? I thought it was highly unlikely to to contract the virus in that way.

Aerosol transmission is vastly more likely than surface contamination. Wipe down surfaces with a disinfecting wipe and wait a few minutes. There was a lot of initial panic over stuff like mail, groceries, etc that is unlikely to be a major issue. Transmission is, of course, possible from contaminated surfaces (hence the hand washing advice) but you're much more likely to breathe it in.

Possible, but again, with a niece with no immune system due to chemotherapy for leukemia, we're not taking any chances. She's been advised to stay home, anyways, so rather than vacation without them, we decided to just cancel, and just visit them at their home that week. Which means we need to be extra careful the two weeks prior.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Smart move. Anyone who is immunocompromised has to play by a different set of rules.

Smart choice. No need to even get the dice out. Not worth it. I am sure everyone is disappointed but it will just make the next time that much sweeter.

Pretty much (but there are a lot of locals in that boat too). There are some that seem to be doing as you are planning. Local leaders are encouraging visitors to bring their supplies (groceries, toilet paper, etc from home as much as possible), but the grocery stores and restaurants have been packed.

One restaurant owner, as of a week ago told a friend of mine that he has no intention of requiring social distancing or mask wearing in his place.

From what I've seen on the beach, people are distancing from other groups of people for the most part.

EDIT: On the other hand, the County and all of the towns are currently being sued for the first bridge closure...so they might be hesitant to do it again

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

Recently read this piece that discusses some huge flaws in the data collection (and reporting of the data). The article says that while covid is serious, it's not as serious as it's being made out to be. There's also a part 2 written on June 13th that takes an even deeper dive into the data. Curious to hear feedback from some of those more educated on the virus here.

Depending on who I talk to and what I read, my opinion on how serious to take this fluctuates between 'we need to go back on lockdown' and 'it's not that serious for most of us, we can live a life that is close to normal, with some tweaks' - right now I'm definitely in the latter camp, but always looking to hear differing opinions.

Anyways, scrutiny/criticism of above pieces?

Twitter me

Scrutiny...everyone is looking for an article that confirms how they feel.
The data is ever evolving. If only we had direction on how to collect it, catalog it, etc.
And while some say "It's not as serious as it's being made out to be..." That's simply looking at the death rate. With that being spoken, there are still 125,000+ Americans dead due to this virus. In 4-5 months. More than the double the official number of names on the Vietnam Memorial that covers 21 years.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

And while some say "It's not as serious as it's being made out to be..." That's simply looking at the death rate.

What else should we be looking at? Hospitalizations is a good indicator of people who have 'severe' symptoms, and (assuming we have at least 20M cases in the US), we still have a hospitalization rate under 1% across the population.

More than the double the official number of names on the Vietnam Memorial that covers 21 years.

But, assuming the US reaches 200k deaths, it will still be at most a third of the annual deaths caused by Cancer or Heart Disease. Comparisons are kind of meaningless without context.

Twitter me

I'll say this as nicely as I can...
My parents never went to the store to buy chicken and caught cancer.
So at that point you are comparing different things that kill people. But they aren't the same.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

My parents never went to the store to buy chicken and caught cancer

And my parents never went to store to buy chicken and got in a fight with the Vietcong. This comment was in response to your comparison to the Vietnam war.

Twitter me

we still have a hospitalization rate under 1% across the population.

Better hope it stays that way. The total number of staffed hospital beds in the U.S. is about 0.3% of the population (2020 statistics from the AHA at https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals). Obviously not everyone is hospitalized at the same time, but being under 1% is not exactly a victory.

But, assuming the US reaches 200k deaths, it will still be at most a third of the annual deaths caused by Cancer or Heart Disease. Comparisons are kind of meaningless without context.

I can't catch cancer or heart disease from someone passing by me in the grocery store. Also, those death tolls are more predictable (since they are chronic conditions) and are counts over an entire year. 200k COVID-19 deaths in 5-6 months is catastrophic. More context.

It is catastrophic. Considering numbers with a fresh scale of reference is also helpful though. I think one of the biggest problems we face in this instant technology society is the lack of realization for how big the US, the world, is.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Again, I'm not saying that 1% hospitalizations is a victory; I'm suggesting that if we use hospitalizations as a proxy for 'severe' symptoms, we're seeing about 1% of those infected with Covid have 'severe' symptoms, and about 0.3% dying. And before adjusting for age or risk factors.

Twitter me

Florida has been characterized lately as a hot spot.

Right now, at this moment, there are over empty 1800 ICU beds there. That sounds like a Hell Hole.

Hospitals are like hotels. They can't run on empty. The Texas Medical Center was at 97% capacity BEFORE the pandemic.

Leonard. Duh.

I can't catch cancer or heart disease from someone passing by me in the grocery store.

This is just a bad analogy, considering that there is just a little bit of discrepancy between the survival rates.

Leonard. Duh.

OK, tell that to the OP that brought up cancer and heart disease, not the poster who agrees that it's a bad analogy due to the fact that these diseases aren't contagious.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

Why not the OP that brought up Vietnam?

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Sure. Agreed, it's a bad analogy.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

The Vietnam thing is to compare total number of deaths, with a time period.
You cannot compare rates. The death rate for this thing may never be known...because we may never know how many had it or how many it finally killed. (You have to assume everyone got tested with a certain confidence and that the death certificates are correct.) So instead of looking at rates that can change all along the way (and some see "improving numbers/rates" as a victory...) you have to look at THE number which is the number of people that have died. As a point of reference, the WAR is a bad thing. It lasted 21 years and with 58,000 dead. In only 4 months we have over double that with 125,000 people dead (with social distancing!) No rates. Just total numbers. If you think it's a bad analogy, sorry. Just putting things in a reference frame that could be understood...a time period and number of deaths. Not everyone sees heart disease and its effects, but everyone knows about Vietnam, and the memorial, and that it has casualties. So while some want to say it's an apples to oranges comparison, it's a lot closer than comparing rates.

As far as comparing rates, what's a better number 1% of 100 or 0.2% of 600 or 0.05 of 10,000? That's what comparing rates does. Oh look at the 0.2% and 0.05%...it's going down. All along the formula to get to that number has been changing. And meanwhile the end number is big. Just trying to make it easy to see. If you don't want to see it you won't.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Don't take me wrong, I think all the numbers above are advantageous to keep a scale of reference in our minds. I will even throw out another one for discussion sake (not an analogy). There are tens of thousands of deaths each year in the US caused by vehicular crashes (I think around 30k the last time I looked it up). And another, cigarette smoking is estimated to kill 480k each year. Covid-19 is horrific. It is also not the only horrific thing killing people.

I am not excusing anybody that takes Covid lightly.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Yes 125k is a lot of deaths, but I don't like the comparison as the Americans who died in Vietnam were 18-24 years old. Looking at the latest Virginia data, over half of the deaths are over 80 years old. With respect to any older folks on this board, I wouldn't consider those deaths premature.

This is a very delicate discussion point. I read an article a couple months back (can't find it now) that attempted to relate the pandemic to other tragedies in terms of lost life expectancy. I wont attempt to rationalize it here.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Again just total numbers. For things that aren't common. That's the comparison, not utilizing "every year" stats. That's all

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

nm

Hospitalization rate (in this context) is number of people who have been infected divided by number of people who have been in a hospital. There have been 146K confirmed cases in FL. CDC estimates that reported cases are about 1/10th of actual cases - so assume roughly 1.4 million cases in Florida. There's been 14,354 people hospitalized with Covid in Florida since March. That puts you at 1% - meaning that 1% of people who catch Covid have symptoms severe enough to require hospitalization.

Twitter me

+ yeah, I reacted to that too quickly

For an understanding on COVID deaths, the world is reporting in total 500K deaths. The US accounts for 25% of those deaths, yet contributes 5% of the populations.

While I will concede that the world deaths are probably under-reported, we are undeniably failing in comparison to the rest of the medically advanced world. Besides the early atrocities in China, Italy, and Spain, Asia and Europe have and continue to control this disease and prevent death. The U.S. is not controlling the disease.

The United States is currently and will continue to be #1 in deaths in the advanced medical world. As a citizen and health scientist, I am ashamed.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

This I completely agree with. I think any unbiased person would argue that the US has handled this pretty terribly, especially relative to the financial and intellectual resources at our disposal.

Twitter me

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

But, assuming the US reaches 200k deaths, it will still be at most a third of the annual deaths caused by Cancer or Heart Disease. Comparisons are kind of meaningless without context.

In February, COVID was outside of the Top 75 causes of death in the United States

From March until now, it has been the #1 cause of death in the United States

such a rapid ascent of a cause of death has never been experienced before, and what's scary is that it has sustained its place at the top of the board since it got there.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

I agree with almost everything you're saying, but I'll argue this point:

what's scary is that it has sustained its place at the top of the board since it got there.

Per the CDC, deaths for the week of 6/20 are the lowest they've been since the week of 3/21. Furthermore, we've seen a steady decrease in deaths each week since 4/28. I recognize that deaths are trailing indicator, but I think it's alarmist to call it 'sustained' at this point (it's no longer sustained; it's clearly receding).

Twitter me

The numbers themselves might be decreasing, but at least the last I saw, it was still the leading cause of death in the US, which is the sustained I was talking about.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Recently we just reached the grim milestone of 500,000 COVID deaths worldwide.

CDC reports that 650,000 people die of flu like illnesses around the world every year. And that's with a vaccine.

Leonard. Duh.

And how many would die of COVID if all other countries responded like the US?

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

COVID became a pandemic in March.

the flu season is during the fall and winter, which for us would roughly be October through March.

COVID's time period is about half that of the flu right now with only 150k less deaths. This is not the flu. Its not even close to the flu. But you should know that, people on here have been literally telling you this for months, but you never listen.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

650k is the HIGH number. Of the possible.
He forgot to mention that it could be as low as 290k....
Again, all projections. With the available data.
https://www.medscape.com/answers/219557-3459/what-is-the-global-incidence-of-influenza
https://www.health.com/condition/cold-flu-sinus/how-many-people-die-of-the-flu-every-year
Or you could go in the middle with 389k.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6815659/
But I'm sure this won't change the opinions of those that want to make this comparison.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

And even if you are just talking about US numbers.

In 2018-19 the CDC estimated that 34,200 deaths occurred in the US from influenza
In 2019-20 the CDC estimated that number to be between 24k and 62k

To date, there are more than 128,000 deaths in the US alone from COVID-19.

Its absurd to keep making this comparison. Its a bald face lie, and a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the situation at hand to drive and agenda. Its not the fucking flu, its already killed 4x as many people as the flu killed 2 years ago and anywhere from 2x to 5x as many people as the flu last year. And its not over, yet.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

The other thing I dont understand is comparing this to the flu, we never social distance for the Flu. I've had coworkers go into work with the Flu and claim it's something else. Companies didnt mandate remote work, restaurants didnt close down. The flu would be nothing if we did this every flu season.

It seems like trolling to me. At this point I'm starting to wonder if people are really so obtuse or if they aren't incentivized somehow to spread bad/corrupt information. I mean, how can you seriously expect people to believe minimizing 125k deaths in just a few months isn't a bad faith effort?

Nobody is saying that the 125k deaths don't matter. People are suggesting that given that (1) a large majority of the population is not at risk of death, and (2) there are preventative measures out there that work (wearing a masks, washing hands, distancing where possible) that the country can return to something close to normal life.

Obvious disclaimer here - I will not defend people who don't wear masks in public.

Twitter me

The flu comparison, in a vacuum, is not reasonable. However, I think Leonard's point is that people go about their normal behavior during flu season, perhaps just washing their hands more than normal, yet during COVID people act with far more fear, despite there a similar (or possibly smaller) risk for the majority of population.

At first, when there was a ton of uncertainty and we had no idea what the risk was, I think this behavior was rational. But, as more data becomes available, I believe this behavior makes less and less sense. Wear a mask. Wash your hands. Don't touch your face. Do elbow bumps instead of handshakes. Otherwise, go about life as usual.

Twitter me

I think Leonard's point is that people go about their normal behavior during flu season, perhaps just washing their hands more than normal, yet during COVID people act with far more fear, despite there a similar (or possibly smaller) risk for the majority of population.

COVID is far, far deadlier than the flu. The numbers speak for themselves. And this is with social distancing procedures in place during this pandemic and little to nothing done globally for the flu season outside of the shot.

People act with more fear over this pandemic because there is reason to do so. And there is absolutely no guarantee we'll ever get out of this without it literally running through a very significant portion of the population to get there as even the best researchers into a vaccine don't even know if an effective one is possible.

And as for the similar risk, we literally don't even know about this for certain right now. There is plenty of evidence right now that those who develop even minor symptoms when they are infected end up with life altering complications coming out of it, like lung scarring and a permanent decrease in breathing ability. And there have been noticeable increases in circulatory issues with young people who have been infected with upticks in rates of strokes and heart attacks. The bottom line is, we don't know this virus very well right now and its incredibly dangerous to keep playing the "well, its just a bad case of the flu, get over yourselves" game that so many are insistent on doing.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

COVID is far, far deadlier than the flu. The numbers speak for themselves.

The Flu typically has a 0.1%-0.2% death rate for the population (varies by year). Covid in the US is at about 0.3% for the population as a whole. I recognize that covid is more contagious than the flu, and I don't know the breakdown of flue deaths by age. I understand that we have taken preventative measures, that have lessened the spread of Covid, but Sweden has not. with roughly 67k confirmed cases, and using the '10 point multiplier' (for lack of a better term) given by the CDC, you're looking at a 0.7% death rate at worst in a country that has done almost nothing to curb spread of the virus.

People act with more fear over this pandemic because there is reason to do so.

If Covid is at worst 7x as deadly as the flu, then we should be 7x as fearful. It feels like a lot of people are 100x as fearful

There is plenty of evidence right now that those who develop even minor symptoms when they are infected end up with life altering complications coming out of it, like lung scarring and a permanent decrease in breathing ability. And there have been noticeable increases in circulatory issues with young people who have been infected with upticks in rates of strokes and heart attacks.

I have not seen this data at all yet, could you share?

The bottom line is, we don't know this virus very well right now and its incredibly dangerous to keep playing the "well, its just a bad case of the flu, get over yourselves" game that so many are insistent on doing.

I think it's completely fair to say 'if you're under 60 and in good health, put a mask on indoors, wash your hands often, and get over yourself.'

Twitter me

When using Sweden as an example many fail to account for things like guaranteed paid sick leave, robust social safety net if you can't work and free healthcare. In the US if you feel mildly ill but don't have paid sick leave you are likely to go to work, not the case in most of Europe. In Sweden as most of the rest of the world people used masks and kept social distancing without being forced to. We can't even do it in places under penalty of law here.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

This is a great point - basically saying that Sweden has the political and cultural infrastructure in place that drives individuals to behave rationally. I've been a big proponent of just wearing a mask indoors and washing hands. Sweden is obviously doing that better than we are, and that's limiting the spread.

Twitter me

I mean I just read yesterday that Rudy Gobert, the guy whose positive test effectively shut down sports, still isn't fully recovered 3 months after having the virus.

"The taste has returned, but the smell is still not 100%. I can smell the smells, but not from afar. I spoke to specialists, who told me that it could take up to a year," Gobert said.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Thanks for sharing this. I will say, it looks like those who are experiencing long term symptoms/recoveries were hospitalized with somewhat severe symptoms? If less than 1% of those infected require hospitalization, and at most 77% of those individuals experience long term symptoms, we're still looking at <0.8% of those infected having lasting issues. That said, I do see that there is far more uncertainty than I previously acknowledged.

Twitter me

I couldn't find overall numbers from my cursory search, but based on the graph below, hospitalization is far higher than 1%.

Can you help me understand the graph and how the conclusion of greater than 1% hospitalization rate can be inferred from the data in the graph?

To me, it appears that the graph is saying, for example, that for the oldest age group the rate is 17.2 per 100,000.

To be even more conservative, I assume that's not 100,000 cases? If it's just per 100,000 in general, and assuming a 10% infection rate within that population (for discussion purposes), that would mean 17.2 hospitalizations per 10,000 infections. That's nowhere near 1%. To get even close to the 1% case hospitalization rate, the assumption would have to be a ~1.7% infection rate within the 100,000 population shown. (17.2 hospitalizations per 1,720 cases. 1,720 cases is 1.72% of 100,000)

My interpretation makes little sense to me, which is why I'm asking for your thoughts on how you interpreted it. Maybe my assumption is accurate, the infection rate is that low and the hospitalization rate is that high. Data...it'll get after ya.

Ya know, I think I read that wrong. I was thinking it was percentages, not people per 100k. But I don't know how it could possibly be per 100k, when the death rate in the US is between 0.5% and 1%. that would mean a WHOLE lot of people are dying outside of the hospital. I don't know anymore.

No worries. I'm the first to admit some of this data makes my head spin. I figured I was just reading it wrong.

Also, the CDC's current estimate is 98 hospitalizations per 100K. The data is changing so quickly. Once you wrap your head around data from 2 weeks ago, everything changes all over again.

Per 100,000 what?

.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

Not sure what your intent is with this comment...

"Population" according to the link.

Thank you. Apologies, on mobile outdoors earlier and didn't notice the link embedded in the post to which I replied.

However, the rapid recovery has not been the experience of thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - of patients worldwide who've been classified as mild cases. Many struggle for months with lingering Covid-19 symptoms that can be debilitating. They exhibit shortness of breath, extreme fatigue, intermittent fevers, cough, concentration issues, chest pressure, headaches, and heart palpitations, among other symptoms. The literature has a name for them: "long-haulers."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2020/06/13/report-suggests-some...

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

RE: the article....

I think it is an unscientific blend of data, very coarse modeling, and opinion.

We have gaps everywhere, but "hospitalizations" are probably the cleanest and earliest indicator we have. I agree; because it is indicative of the spread of the disease and its severity. And it doesn't depend on any other model or piece of data. But then he doesn't use it. He'll pick a mean number when it's handy; he'll pick a max number when it's handy; frankly it sounds like what academics do when they get drunk and suddenly become policy savants.

Note the site says..."Anyone can publish on Medium per our Policies, but we don't fact-check every story. For more info about the coronavirus, see cdc.gov." I think an "anyone" did.

my opinion on how serious to take this fluctuates

The public policy dilemma is keeping the low risk folks from infecting the high risk folks. An IFR between 0.5 and 1 percent (which is likely) seems small but at the population level it isn't "low"...and it is irrelevant if there are significant demographics where the risk is many to many-many times greater...and that's what we have.

I have said before; if I was under 40, I wouldn't feel threatened at all. But I would take whatever steps are necessary not to kill someone who is high risk. The millions and millions of people bitching about that common courtesy blows my mind.

frankly it sounds like what academics do when they get drunk and suddenly become policy savants.

Yeah... Exhibit A... the Imperial College Model.

Leonard. Duh.

Appreciate the comments.

if I was under 40, I wouldn't feel threatened at all. But I would take whatever steps are necessary not to kill someone who is high risk.

This is where I'm at. I wear a mask anytime I go indoors (other than my home), and I avoid heavily populated outdoor areas. I'm eating at restaurants but always sit outside (most restaurants here have outdoor seating and have spread out into the sidewalk). I wash my hands plenty. What else is there to do?

Twitter me

Sounds like you're doing it right. Sadly, so many people aren't. And they're fucking it up for the rest of us.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

not much.

My wife and I stay in unless we absolutely have to go somewhere and then we practice social distancing as much as possible. I get pissed when people feel a need to be close to me. I've left items on the floor in the check out line a couple of times. Haven't decked anyone (or their children) yet, but I haven't completely ruled it out : )

You haven't ruled out decking children? :(

I feel like you shouldn't limit your options.

I'm on board with him.

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

I've ruled out most small children. The ones bigger than me are in play.

[did I really need the /s?]

My wife and I faithfully wear masks when we shop at Aldi, Kroger, or Lowe's. When we traveled to North Carolina to visit my in-law, we stopped at a real nice gas station, and we wore mask, even if it was a dash in to tinkle and get out. We wash our hands with hand santizers and at home. We had gotten a bit lax with wiping down stuff we buy from the store, but our efforts, I think, has helped us to stay healthy. We rarely eat out as we have our own garden producing for us and we have been stocking up on essentials, and it has taken on a bit more urgency after Fernley dropped hints that supply chain was being squeezed. When we went to Mass yesterday in Blacksburg, St. Philip Anglican Church, everybody wore masks the entire time during the liturgy, and when it came to distribution of the Eucharist, the priest sanitized his hands, wore mask, and we would go up as a couple, maintaining social distancing, and receive only the Host in hands and returned to our seats. After the Mass, everybody wiped down the pews their butt were in. It was great seeing everyone being on board with being vigilant. As the priest said, we have faith, but God gave brains for logic and reasons.

So, when I return to the plant in Blacksburg on the 20th, I will be expected to wear mask when passing in the hall, going down to the production floor, and if I stand up to work in my cubicle, I have to wear the mask. The employer has already made it clear they will give a talk to anyone who is caught not compiling with social distancing and mask requirement. I feel a bit better but at the same time, I won't lie, I do feel anxious about returning to the plant after being home, working remotely since the week of Good Friday.

It is those who scoff at wearing masks and thump their chest saying, "I trust my immune system while taking vitamins A, C, and whatever else," that makes me shake my head sadly.

It is those who scoff at wearing masks and thump their chest saying, "I trust my immune system while taking vitamins A, C, and whatever else," that makes me shake my head sadly.

A cloth mask does nothing to protect the wearer. It protects everyone else. The people who refuse to wear a mask are not even putting themselves in danger; just everyone else.

Twitter me

I'm worried about the (somewhat unsubstantiated) rumors of it causing other health issues.

Recruit Prosim

Did you know the "new cases" in daily reports are actually "old infections newly reported"???

Second line in the article. Refer VTGM's posts above. This was done in VA and some other places in April and May and got blasted for it. I don't think anyone is doing that anymore, but correct me if you still see it being done.

Edit: This is a reply to bar1990's post, but I misposted.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

I saw this and it spoke to my soul:

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

Looks like at least 15 FL counties now have various types of mask ordinances and an ever increasing number of muni's...including ST AUGUSTINE! Yay! Go Mayor Tracy! (I do miss Mayor Nancy)

Actually the City Commissioners passed it. Primary driver was a push from local businesses, several of which have closed due to Covid. Per the City Mgr...

"It's in response to the pleading of multiple businesses, especially the restaurant industry that are struggling with no government standard and it's a constant battle with customers and employees. So, they're asking for this,"

Where do they sell those?

https://shopgobrand.com/shop

I have mine and it's great.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

It says its 10" wide so I assume that's only 20" in circumference. I dont think that's going to work for my large head. I has a sad.

That looks awesome, but super hot. Is it hot?

I don't think so but I've spent a lot of time in turnout gear so my definition of hot clothes is skewed. I wear it here in Florida where the feel like temp has been over 100 recently. There will be some sweat on your upper lip but it's not awful.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Yeah, as expected, the facemasks don't restrict airflow or Oxygen levels for the wearer. So what bullshit excuse are we going to deal with next on why someone can't be bothered to wear it?

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

tbf, he is wearing a mask that is designed for a surgeon. Can you imagine a scenario where a surgical mask causes the surgeon to pass out during an operation? So, of course his blood oxygen level isn't going to drop.

That said, everyone should find a mask that they find comfortable and can perform the tasks that they would need to perform with the mask on. It shouldn't cause breathing issues, and if it is, find a different mask.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

You can find many example of people doing this same experiment using cloth, surgical, N95, and respirator masks and having no drop in O2 levels. It's almost as if they were designed to worn on your face without causing breathing issues.

gettaloada this guy, though!

(comments are now turned off, but boy were they a hoot)

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

The response time of the detector is 30 seconds. This is the same trick I used to play on people when I blocked the tube for confined space monitoring- yes, you will get wonky numbers when you adjust the flow rate. If there was a "high peak it would probably be right at 25%.

You'd need a sample tube to perform this test correctly. Obviously wasn't the point, though.

Wow. What research. So good. Alert the Noble Prize committee!!! Hire him as NIH director.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

I sure hope none of the kids were infected.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

That title tho. !! DANGER !!

I would love to see my state compromise and reopen everything, but maintain a mask order. I would wear a mask 24/7. I'd wear a mask in the shower, and standing by myself on top of Mt Mitchell. If masks work as well as claimed, there shouldn't be a problem.

Leonard. Duh.

It's not that masks are some miracle panacea. Masks are simply one of the least-bad ROIs, when you define ROI as impact on transmission rate vs cost and inconvenience.

This sort of reads like that meme I've seen going around that says "If masks work, then why do we socially distance? If social distancing works, then why do we where masks?" The response I've seen is "If seatbelts work, then why do we have air bags? If airbags work, then why do we have seatbelts?" Obviously neither method is perfect, and the hope is the combined use of social distancing and mask wearing will slow the virus.

If seat belts and airbags work then why brakes?

Oooo... I love to play the common sense logic game.

If brakes, airbags, and seat belts work then why do we need traffic laws? I should be free to drive 90 down the sidewalk blasting Ted Nugent if I want to so long as I don't hit anyone.

I like this game too. In the spirit of the lockdown and mask orders... Since we have seatbelt laws, why are you still making me drive 25 mph on the interstate when you know we can go 65 mph and be OK?

Leonard. Duh.

Is what's going on in the country right now "OK"?

No. It's not. But you probably don't care for me to share the context of that statement.

Leonard. Duh.

I think we know exactly how you feel on this. You've been very clear in your denial regarding the severity of this virus from the start

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

This really is fun... During the time of this hypothetical 25 mph speed limit.... hypothetically...

Is there a shit storm and a plague of locusts along the interstate that will clog your windshield at speeds above 25 mph causing you to wreck and endanger other drivers? Would this wreck also interrupt transport and delivery of vital supplies to citizens who urgently need them to survive the shit storm? Would a wreck also further strain emergency response resources by requiring them to venture out into the plague storm endangering them as well? And is this hypothetical shit-storm-plague happening at a time when, after years of budget cuts, the USDOT (who normally directs the management of the interstate system and funds the adjacent localities maintenance, enforcement, and emergency efforts) has dipped out to vacation in Florida, tweeting only "It's 5 o'clock somewhere." as guidance?

Lots of amateur epidemiologists out there apparently. With all this newly discovered innate talent the US will no doubt be a global leader in the field for years to come.

The list keeps growing....

Honestly, if these kind of policies remain in place, I'm not sure how any kind of resumption of sports can continue going forward, unless they give exclusions to athletes.

Its also worth pointing out that there are regional HQs in many of the listed states where the main corporate office is in NYC. This effectively cuts off any kind of travel between offices, and should elongate work from home initiatives until things can even begin to resume to normal.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Spoiler Alert- Sports ain't coming back. Not unless the current climate blows over.

Leonard. Duh.

Moog has issued a guideline for folks who are considering traveling to those hot spot states that if they do,

they cannot return to work until they have either:

  • A negative Covid-19 diagnostic test result (not an anti-body test) OR
  • Been quarantined for at least 14 days without symptoms, whichever comes first

It sucks big time for those who are working on the production floor because they do not have the luxury of working from home like I do, and I know there were some who traveled to the beach or Tennessee. They are left to wonder if they have to stay home now.

As for sports, I am going to say once more, there should be no sports whatsoever for a year. Public safety has to trump entertainment.

Pretty much same deal in NJ. I'll be keeping a close eye on this as I'm aiming to be out of state in a couple weekends to a state that's not on this particular list. If that state is on the list by then, I would be making the decision to go but then require a self isolation (unpaid) and likely risk a big ding on my performance review for the year.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Cuomo, who killed hundreds with his absurd nursing home policy. Let's listen to that guy.

1. Flattening the curve is about delaying cases, not stopping cases
2. In hospital "with covid" vs "for covid" needs to be reported and contrasted. If you crash your car and end up in the ER for broken bones, but subsequently test positive for COVID, you are not a hospitalized COVID patient. Sorry, Dr. Fauci.
3. Herd immunity is the only way out. Let healthy people live their life + protect elderly

Leonard. Duh.

For those in the know, why is there such a change in the data relationships? How does this data compare to other published data?

1. The consensus of epidemiologist and the leaders of every other medically advanced country disagrees. (The more prevalent the virus, the more difficult it is to contain and control.)
2. Is this prevalent? I would resist hyperbole on when discussing the cause of increase of hospital cases.
3. Is herd immunity even possible? Considering not every infected individual is developing a robust immunity. And are the long-term health risks worth it? I get Americans are already the fatest with highest prevalence of diabetes and generally has the worst health statistics in the medically advanced countries, so I guess the thought is why not add another unhealthy risk. idk.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

Point 3 is so critical. There was a study published in Nature today that asymptomatic and symptomatic people had indistinguishable viral loads. If that finding holds up, herd immunity is impossible.

And to further complicate things, if this holds to be true, it makes a vaccine incredibly difficult to create, because a vaccine relies on infecting someone with a small, relatively benign dose that won't cause a reaction or give you symptoms, but still produce the antibodies to fight it off. What they're seeing with these studies now is that the weaker the response by the host, the more unlikely it is that those antibodies are built up, which makes a vaccine incredibly hard, if not impossible to create.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

A colleague with knowledge of a vaccine effort from Indonesia said their modelers say COVID will be with us in some form for a decade. The caveat is I have seen other models that disagree. So take it for what it's worth.

If there's a vaccine ready for mass distribution in under 10 years for COVID-19, I'll buy a new laptop just so I can eat it.

Leonard. Duh.

Do you just ignore all information that doesn't fit your stance? There are several vaccine candidates that are past phase I testing and have shown efficacy and some are already manufacturing at risk. We're going to have a widely available vaccine in 2021.

Actually, I don't ignore any information. I just firmly believe in the notion that while history may not repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.

We chased a SARS-one vaccine for a few years and then gave up because it mutated so much, we couldn't keep up with it, and then it fizzled out, so we went into why bother mode. I'm just putting my chips on that happening with Sars-two in some form or fashion.

Honestly, I hope you're right. Because TeamFauci dangles that vaccine carrot in front of the going back to normal horse all day long. IF one is widely available in 2021 as you say, there really won't be any more excuses.

Leonard. Duh.

We chased a SARS-one vaccine for a few years and then gave up because it mutated so much, we couldn't keep up with it, and then it fizzled out, and there was no need to develop one

FTFY. None of the SARS-COV1 preliminary test vaccines developed were even tested in humans. It died before any actually did. You have to remember that this was 20 years ago when vaccine technology was slower to develop and the virus died out in a couple of months. Only 115 cases in US, no one died.
SARS1 Timeline via CDC

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

We didn't chase SARS because it fizzled out so quickly. There were, however, a few people still chasing MERS (another coronavirus, if you're not familiar) and were about to start phase III trials. That's when COVID hit, causing them to shift their focus to it. That MERS vaccine was tweaked and now called ChAdOx1, one of the leading candidates for COVID, currently in phase II/III trials in UK and Brazil and starting in US this month.

Weren't you already supposed to eat your laptop for another statement?

Yeah, I already ate that one. I gotta get another one for the newest laptop challenge.

Leonard. Duh.

I think I'm in the minority here who agree with your first point, especially as more information comes out confirming that those in good health are at low risk of death.

As far as 'with covid' vs 'for covid' - I would be surprised to learn that these numbers are so large that they are tipping the scale either way. There's likely a bunch of COVID deaths that happened early that are not counted. I imagine it's close to a wash.

Regarding point #3 - I think there's a reasonable compromise to be made here (and I've been beating this drum throughout this thread) - Healthy people can live their life with a mask on in public, indoor places. They can also do their part by avoiding large crowds, or at least quarantining then until they get a negative test if they must go to a crowded even. Businesses can help this buy only serving outdoors, having curbside pick up options, improved sanitizing processes, and special hours only for high risk individuals.

If people just do a little bit better, life doesn't have to change much.

Twitter me

If masks work so well, open it all back up. That's my stance. I will wear a mask anywhere and everywhere, if I could go to a movie, game, or concert... and the kids are back in school.

Leonard. Duh.

Masks work well for normal activities if EVERYONE is wearing them. The problem with movies, games, and concerts is that people would be constantly taking their masks off to drink or yell or sing along.

The kids going back to school is difficult... The kids are fine, but what if a student lives with their grandparents? That kid probably can't quarantine himself from his grandparents.

Twitter me

The kids living with their grandparents would be doing their part in social distancing by going to school instead of piling up at the house with the grandparents this fall... when the regular flu season starts.

At any rate, the evidence is trending more and more every day that kids do not spread the virus. Somebody above talked about how poorly we are handling this as opposed to European countries. I don't know about that, but if those people want us to go more along with Europe, sending the kids back to school would be a great start.

BECAUSE...The kids in Europe are going back to school. And, no... it's not because they locked down better, or contact traced better. They're just accepting the evidence that kids do not spread this.

There's also the repercussions of kids at home all this time to consider. If we keep kids home...

1. Kids do not get the opportunity to flex their immuno-muscles and build up protection against all kinds of disease.

2. We continue to inflict the psycho-social damage of kids being locked in the house.

3. There will be an educational crisis in this country if there is no school for an entire year. Grade promotion, and skill evaluation is going to be a nightmare. In my opinion, online learning was an abject failure based on the parents and teachers I've discussed this with.

4. We're adding on to the already concerning childhood obesity problem in this country. Kids can't play on the playground, no gym class, and no organized sports. Sitting at home, playing Animal Crossing and eating junk food is not great, Bob.

The kids going back to school seems like a no-brainer to me.

Leonard. Duh.

bro you're conflating two things -- who has caught the disease to this point, and who could catch the disease. schools and daycares were the first things to close. Children aren't going to bars. Children don't live in nursing homes. Schools are exactly the kind of environment where (any) disease could spread rapidly, because (a) kids aren't known for hygiene and (b) close contact with multiple other kids for hours at a time

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

I'm making the point that there is evidence that kids do not transmit the disease to others very readily. That's just thing, not two.

Leonard. Duh.

is your position not that it stands to reason that kids don't catch and transmit the virus because kids haven't caught the virus?

i'm asking if its the case that kids represent a low amount of the total COVID cases because of other factors that would restrict them from having caught it -- e.g. more restrictive stay at home measures, less likelihood to have been tested due to being asymptomatic, etc.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

My wife's daycare never closed. They are marketed as the day care for essential workers.

Two small sample sizes and one preprint that doesn't support your claim (incidence of disease is not incidence of transmission). Not much evidence, and certainly doesn't justify your original claim.

Even the CDC says that only around 2% of ALL COVID cases are children. Isn't just common sense that if they contract the disease at such a small rate, would chances of transmission be low?

No, it's not. Symptomatic infection and silent transmission are different; we know that COVID-19 can be passed by asymptomatic carriers. Most children are asymptomatic, as the study you link above notes. That does not mean they cannot be disease vectors.

Real question... With what you know, or believe about COVID-19, do you think that kids should be kept at home until after Christmas, and no organized sports this Fall?

Leonard. Duh.

Schools can reopen if done properly. Here in Montgomery County, they're talking about splitting kids into two groups, one group AM and one PM, to attend school four days a week (Wednesday off for cleaning of the schools). Masks required for older kids. That seems reasonable, since kids can be kept at greater distance from one another in classrooms. A full resumption of normal school activities is much more dangerous, especially to teachers and staff, who may be more vulnerable.

Sports are dicey, but mostly for spectators crammed in stands, interacting at concessions, bathrooms, etc. The kids playing could in theory be mostly kept together more readily, enabling contact tracing and immediate isolation if a positive case is identified.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. If conditions have to be placed on opening the schools to satisfy all schools of thought as it pertains to coronavirus, OK... That's fine. However, I do believe that the adverse effects of children just staying at home until Christmas far outweigh the benefits of them staying at home until Christmas, as it pertains to spreading Coronavirus.

Leonard. Duh.

Recent interview between NPR and physician from Johns Hopkins

Pull quote...

Sharfstein agrees it's OK to extrapolate β€” not only from essential worker child care in the U.S., but from the experiences of countries around the world where schools have already opened up. "There are ways to substantially reduce the risks when kids get together," he says.

He also agrees with Haspel, the child care advocate, in saying that "there is converging evidence that the coronavirus doesn't transmit among children like the flu β€” that it's a lower risk."

There are two related reasons for this, Sharfstein explains: One is that children seem to be less likely to get infected, and the second is that when they are infected they are much more likely to be mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic. If they're not coughing or sneezing, it's harder for them to spread the virus to others. The New Yorker reported that Iceland, which did extensive contact tracing, found only two examples of child-to-parent transmission.

Looks like a physician from Johns Hopkins kind of agrees with the notion that since kids are less likely to contract COVID, they are less likely to spread it.

Leonard. Duh.

the conundrum

Researchers from the Geneva University Hospitals and the University of Geneva surveyed 23 children, ranging in age from 7 days old to 16 years old, who tested positive for COVID-19.

All but two carried the same amount of virus as adults, and that's why researchers say children should be considered as transmitters unless proven otherwise.

Fewer children than adults contract COVID-19, fewer develop severe forms of the illness and they don't seem to be "major drivers of transmission," but children of all ages have been infected.

https://www.kltv.com/2020/07/01/study-children-can-transmit-covid-like-a...

Yeah, but... I could go Guitarman on this and claim small sample size doesn't prove much.

Europe already has piles of data from schools being open, and there's evidence from scores of daycare facilities that indicate children do not transmit this like traditional flu. Iceland has done extensive contact tracing, and child to adult transmission is nil.

I do agree that there is a conundrum, however. Do we follow the March 2020 science, or the June 2020 science?

Leonard. Duh.

The American Academy of Pediatrics agrees with you link

.

HH4455

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Wow wow wow. (I'm borrowing from bar1990) I appreciate your passionate response. I disagree with so much of your post, BUT... some of your points intrigue me. I imagine if you and I cracked some beers at a long Saturday afternoon tailgate we could solve so much more than we ever will just typing at each other.

Good on you for keeping the kids healthy and active. Go in peace, brother.

Leonard. Duh.

yep, we could all use some beers and a VT tailgate

HH4455

"Well, wait a minute. Where'd it go? Bring it back! Play back the entire message."

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

I saw something 2 days ago about 2 studies done by reputable institutions where they looked at kids transmitting the virus. That they looked at more than 10,000 kids is daycare through those whole thing and only found 1case of transmission from kids to someone else.

Now I can't find it, anyone else hear of this?

This is going to be great for the ACC.

I'd be interested in seeing this. As someone with two kids at daycare and a wife who is a public school teacher, I can confirm that daycare and schools are cesspools of common infections. What you are implying completely flies in the face of my personal experience and all of the feedback that I've gotten over the last 4 years regarding general child care from our kids' pediatrician and Immunologist.

To add, no matter what a study says, if the teachers don't feel safe they will NOT be in the classroom. Perception IS reality. It's not just the kids in the classroom.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

I agree.
I have 2 kids and wife is a dentist.
But, this thing is unusual. I'm ready for unusual stuff.
If the kids are not getting it, then that means it is not reproducing inside them.
If it is not reproducing inside them they they cannot expell a sufficient amount to produce a viral load hence, they are not transmission vectors.

Not sure if it's true but apparently, according to some reputable sources, it might be.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

I was very suspect of your comment (it defies all common logic, as MEchase said below), but looks like there are studies that indicate this (one from China, and one from Japan) both mentioned in the NYT Daily Podcast today.

I'll update with the exact quote when NYT uploads the transcript, but the summary is that the virus actually isn't attacking the lungs; it's attacking the blood vessels. As a result, when the virus manifests itself in children, it results in a lot of inflammation and swelling, but not coughing/droplets. This makes the virus significantly less contagious than influenza in children, who are thus not likely to be transmitters.

Edit to include the transcript:

the science isn't firm yet. But there are more and more hints that it may be safe, or pretty safe, to open the schools in the fall, especially for very young kids.

There's growing evidence that kids are not big transmitters of the virus to adults. Denmark opened its schools in April. Did not see a big spike up in cases. Finland opened its schools in May. Did not see a big spike up in cases. Even from the beginning in China, the Chinese said, every time they looked at clusters in families, almost never did they see a case where the child, particularly the youngest child, was the one who introduced the virus into the family. Usually it was parent infecting the kids, not the other way around.

We know that kids are big transmitters of flu viruses. And they do it because they cough and sneeze like crazy. But if the biggest symptom that they're getting is inflammation, rather than coughing and sneezing, β€” and that's the case; kids tend to get more sort of cranky, inflammatory, unpleasant manifestations of the disease, rather than something that looks like a cold. Then it would make sense that that might be a reason why they're not big transmitters.

Twitter me

and at some points something obviously changes, as college kids seem to have no trouble transmitting the disease, even they don't experience severe symptoms, and then when we get to 50+, 65, 75, etc. the severity increases significantly

Her immunity is going to be a lot of deaths to get to. Assuming you use the lowest case numbers then only 60% I'd needed, I believe the CDC recommends 70% for herd immunity, but others still say 60%. So that's more than 200 mil US citizens that get covid.

Current CDC has death rate at ~5% which is 10 million deaths. With lack of testing hard to know how accurate those numbers are, but even if only 1 in 5 infected are confirmed that's still 2 million deaths. In addition there will be a lot of hospitalizations along the way. Long term effects that aren't fully realized.

Herd immunity is a long long way off.

Current CDC has death rate at ~5% which is 10 million deaths.

Dude, bless your heart. I imagine the world has been a scary place for you these last few months. The death rate or IFR as reported by the CDC is about 0.25... and that's dropping.

Leonard. Duh.

It's not been scary but thanks for being condescending anyways.

Sorry for sounding condescending. I'm actually sympathetic to anyone and everyone being sucked in to the panic-demic that has resulted from the actual pandemic.

Leonard. Duh.

comments like these make it sound like you care more about rolling your eyes at something you consider unjustified hoopla than you do about people who are actually being affected by it

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Yeah, we have 100K deaths and change right now in the US after around 5 months. Thank God we are never getting close to a million...much less 10 million deaths from this. You are misreading some stat from the CDC.

Total cases in US has been 2.7 million according to the CDC. With 127000 deaths. That is 4.7% of cases have died.

These are from the CDC numbers. Is that 2.7 mil active cases?

CDC has also said that the number of asymptomatic/unreported cases likely increases the the number of infected individuals by 10 fold.

"Our best estimate right now is that for every case that's reported, there actually are 10 other infections," CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield said on a call with reporters Thursday.

The estimate comes from looking at blood samples across the country for the presence of antibodies to the virus. For every confirmed case of COVID-19, 10 more people had antibodies, Redfield said.

Currently, there are 2.3 million COVID-19 cases reported in the U.S. The CDC's new estimate pushes the actual number of coronavirus cases up to at least 23 million.

That means that we're looking at a 0.47% death rate, not 4.7%.

BUT, to your original point about herd immunity... at absolute best (for lack of a better term) we're at around 30 million infected. That means we're (again, at best), 1/6 of the way there.

Twitter me

Thank you for the information. There is a reason I used 1% instead of 5% in my original post. But didnt see it was 1 in 10 so assumed 1 in 5.

I think for the most part, the total number of cases has been cumulative. So 2. 7 million people have tested positive, not 2.7 million people are currently sick with COVID.

It's not practical to track when people are officially back to the realm of "not sick".

Echoing others because it bares repeating - the (overall) death rate is nowhere near 5%. Hospitalization rate is around 1% in the US, with the total death rate around .25-.5% based on most estimates.

Twitter me

Once again, not great for those hoping to see fall sports this year

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Major League Baseball has informed Minor League Baseball that they are not going to be providing players to affiliates this year, and as such MiLB has canceled the 2020 season, Single-A through AAA.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Release from VA government yesterday.
Good news.

Virginia is currently averaging more than 10,400 tests per dayβ€”exceeding Governor Northam's goalβ€”and hospitals continue to report ample supplies of personal protective equipment. The percentage of positive tests has dropped to six percent from a high of 20 percent in mid-April. The number of Virginians hospitalized with a positive or pending COVID-19 test has declined significantly over the past several weeks, and more than 1,200 contact tracers are presently working throughout the Commonwealth

This is going to be great for the ACC.

Do you have a link?

Sorry, man, I'm at the beach on mobile.
All the governors pronouncements can be found here.
https://www.governor.virginia.gov

This is going to be great for the ACC.

University of Washington has had a coronavirus outbreak in their Greek Row. How long do you think this will take in Blacksburg once students are back on campus? I bet not long.

UW article

Alabama is really not doing their reputation any favors. Alabama students are having COVID19 parts and having a pseudo "deadpool" to see who gets infected first. First to get sick wins the pot. This is next level stupid.

ABC News

Hmm, science?

Where's the beef?

Alabama State Health Officer Dr. Scott Harris [...] urged people to wear face coverings although they are not required statewide.

"We know face coverings aren't perfect and they don't stop everything," Harris said. "But they do limit transmission."

Not perfect, but still a valuable part of the effort.

I guess that's not COVID-19 news, maybe I should link it in the COVID-19 discourse thread instead.

N. N. Taleb (Black Swan) has an interesting take on the asininity surrounding mask wearing:

Incompetence and Errors in Reasoning Around Face Covering

SIX ERRORS: 1) missing the compounding effects of masks, 2) missing the nonlinearity of the probability of infection to viral exposures, 3) missing absence of evidence (of benefits of mask wearing) for evidence of absence (of benefits of mask wearing), 4) missing the point that people do not need governments to produce facial covering: they can make their own, 5) missing the compounding effects of statistical signals, 6) ignoring the Non-Aggression Principle by pseudolibertarians (masks are also to protect others from you; it's a multiplicative process: every person you infect will infect others).

Also swings a broad axe and dishes out some quality zingers:

  • Unlike school, real life is not about certainties.
  • I truly believe that the pseudolibertarians are sociopaths and misanthropes looking for a political party that they think fits their misanthropy.
  • Paternalistic bureaucrats resisted inviting the general public to use masks on grounds that the supply was limited and would be needed by health professionals β€” hence they lied to us saying "masks are not effective".

It's not a cutting edge hottake but I found it to be a solid summation.

If I'm being honest, I really just wanted to make a joke about splitting coronavirus into a news and discourse thread.

So OK had revenue of 175 million and budget of 152 million in 2018. If they are cutting 13.7 how bad is Tech going to get hit?

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Olympic sports in college are about to be gutted if we don't have football. Schools will be dropping to the bare minimum number of sports to stay division 1. There is no way to make up football money. Men's sports in particular will be the hardest hit due to Title IX.

Please don't take Hokies wrestling :(

Yeah think this pretty a pretty obvious one that has to go. Drinking and Buffett style eating with everyone screaming because the music is so loud just doesn't sound like a good idea.

Posts showing up on r/CFB about both the Ivy League and Pac-12 eyeing a shortened spring season for football.

Not really surprising given the climbing case numbers, but it is going to have interesting ramifications for eligibility, scheduling, etc. This topic was discussed a few months ago too, but it seems like the conferences are beginning to admit the possibility that the fall season is impossible.

edit: "admit the possibility... is impossible" is weird, but I 'm leaving it anyway

I think the NFL is going to drive some of it. A lot of everything is connected between the two. The combine, the draft, trying to play a spring season, then turn around and play a fall season in the NFL as a rookie...they all are moving parts.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

So here is something that I would find really annoying if I was in this situation. Seriously consider a gap year or just taking basic classes at local community college if you have or know recent HS graduates looking to go to college in the fall and they get something like this.

Spoke with a guy who runs the place my daughter gets math tutoring. One of the kids he worked with is going to Michigan. Out-of-state, of course, as we are in NJ. They were told that there will be a "mix" of online and in-person sessions next year. Sure that means a lot of online. Then out-of-state students were told they have to come to campus and be quarantined for 2 weeks there on site before school. Oh, and everything like the library and gym and many other things are closed. So he has to pay to stay there, sit around doing nothing (family cannot stay with him 2 weeks) and then pay full (or at least nearly full) out-of-state tuition to get what will probably be mostly online classes anyway.

I get it if tuition is cut 50%, but this? Seriously, tell Michigan to ____ themselves. Either take a year off and work while living at home and/or get your basic classes out of the way at community college near home. No way I would take that. Math tutor said he recommended the same thing. No idea what they will do as I don't know them.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

This isn't Michigan's fault, so don't direct the ire directly at them. This is a global pandemic. There is no normalcy to this. Nobody is requiring the kid to go to Michigan. But Michigan (and many many many other institutions) have to protect themselves, what they have now, and what they will have in the future. If that's an inconvenience, then there are plenty of other options.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

It is Michigan's fault the way it is being handled. Perfectly fine to require people to self-quarantine. And perfectly fine to have a mix of online and in-person classes. But if you are doing that, cut your tuition - a lot. That is the part that would really get me. Actually the whole 2 week thing would tick me off too, but I would understand and accept that it has to be done. ~$50,000 for tuition alone for online courses in freshmen English, calculus ... No way.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

An unpopular opinion, but I've recently adopted the view that tuition does not buy you an education; it buys you a degree (aka, a badge of honor) and a professional network. In my experience, you do all of your learning on the job anyways.

That said, the student may still be able to save money, and get the degree/network by doing a year of CC and transferring credit. But I don't blame the university for charging what they want to charge (although there's plenty of other things to blame educational institutions for, but I digress).

Man, I'm happy I'm not an undergrad right now.

Twitter me

Edit/additional: Had to check. In-state tuition 15,262 USD, Out-of-state tuition 49,350 USD. If they cut tuition to 50%-60% of that, I'd probably say go ahead and go. Any smaller cut would probably be no if it was me or my daughter.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

So in terms of cost per credit hour purely online classes actually cost more at most schools. Now the question is should you pay for room and board and meal plans etc if you are just going to sit in your dorm that's an individual decision but class cost isn't an issue. (My MPA program at UCF cost me 5 dollars more per credit hour than the in person one)

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

I would also add to this tuition cost issue the fact that people probably don't understand how much work goes into preparing for this semester. Students aren't getting some canned online class like Music Appreciation that has been in place for decades. The faculty are working to transition most of the classes offered at the university to an online form, which includes synchronous lectures, asynchronous materials and recorded lectures, assessments and assignments in new formats, etc. It's a really big lift. And then we're told that our pay might get cut due to budget shortfalls.

Do more, make less. And you want reduced tuition too? Sorry, most universities will fold altogether. Tuition pays for opportunity, and the access to knowledge. You're still getting it whether you're sitting in a room with your professor or engaging in a Zoom lecture (or office hours, we still do those, too).

Do more, make less. And you want reduced tuition too? Sorry, most universities will fold altogether.

That's understandable. But higher education is also a value proposition, and if people don't feel they're getting their value out of it (especially this year), then it's their prerogative to take their education dollars elsewhere. It's not the consumer's job to prop up the higher educational business model, especially considering how the cost of attendance has blown up over the past several decades.

I do see a lot of people supporting businesses for the sake of supporting businesses these days, but they are generally the local business kinds, not multi-billion dollar businesses that have bloated themselves via easy student loans over the past few decades.

I do appreciate and sympathize with the situation you're in, VTGuitarMan, but the thought of parents subsidizing universities when their kids are not getting anywhere near the full experience, at least this year, just grates on me a bit. Please take this as a shot at the university business model over the past few decades, and not at you or your coworkers.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

thought of parents subsidizing universities when their kids are not getting anywhere near the full experience, at least this year, just grates on me a bit.

For freshmen, at least, there is an easy solution. Defer your enrollment, knock out some core courses at a community college, and come to the university next year. It's not as easy for returning students who need to stay on track, I agree, but it's not easy for any of us right now. We're not asking for charity in the form of tuition, but if you're going to be fully enrolled in courses, however they are delivered, the tuition isn't going to change. Someone has to teach those courses and we're not doing it for free. Instruction will still be delivered at as high of a level as we can offer. I would like nothing more than a return to normal, and to have direct classroom interactions with my students and normal research activities in my lab, but that's just not in the cards.

For freshmen, at least, there is an easy solution. Defer your enrollment, knock out some core courses at a community college, and come to the university next year.

Totally agree with this. If one of my girls was a senior (thank goodness she's not), that's what I'd be recommending. Sucks for the returning students, though. Maybe a gap year would be in order.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Outside of the lab work, I could have taken every class online and I don't think it would have been detrimental. Keep in mind this was Civil Engineering and I will admit that I am not an in classroom learner.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

I had a hard time with online classes. Of course, that was when "online classes" were an email and some forum posts. E-learning has come a long way since then.

I think the biggest issue with the e-learning shift this spring was the lack of time to prepare. Teachers who were expecting to be working in person had to suddenly work in an online matter with lesson plans that were not made with that in mind. I'm assuming (hoping) that most have at least been thinking about online solutions for the fall even if they haven't been actively making new lesson plans pending some decision from schools.

I graduated with a BS in Engineering Management Technology, taking 100% online courses. It is challenging with the additional challenge of being deaf. I had to fight to get accommodation so lectures would be captioned or given transcription of said lectures. Eventually, the university switched to using YouTube and linked it as "lecture."

Where we learned the most was through homework assignments and labs. That was not easy. I loved doing research and writing papers, but doing the electronics engineering side was a chore because I had to make many screen capture of circuit simulation, calculations, etc. It was very mundane, but I learned a lot. I realize online courses is not for everyone and for me, it was challenging as I could not raise my hand to ask question or get help. With some instructors, email were hit and miss, but most of them responded within 24 hours.

In case people are curious what Engineering Management Technology is, it is an interdisciplinary program which combines Business Administration and Electronics Engineering.

Sorry for the upcoming rant- and I really do appreciate all you do - but there is so much bloat in the education-industrial complex that I'm not buying costs cannot come down greatly. Spent too many years inside of it before escaping. Hoping that the people in education who do the real work of training people for careers - the people like you - win the battle against the bloat as the education bubble has to pop.

Wish I could find the link, but there was this guy looking at the number of staff relative to when he was a student decades ago relative to the current day (this was from years ago, so "current" is maybe 2010 and the past was maybe 1990, which was when I was in undergrad too). Was something like double. Add in the lazy rivers, rock climbing walls, laser tag facilities ... which cannot be used now anyway and the prices are absurd.

Look, universities have to find a way to live that does not involve things like this:

"Over the last 30 years, published prices for college tuition and fees have risen nearly 500 percent, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Over the same period, the overall inflation rate only doubled."

And it is not anywhere close to being explained by reduced state funding. Private tuition has skyrocketed too and they are not getting state funds as a key component off revenue. And tuition was going through the roof before the cuts that came with the great recession. And many places (not sure about VA) have had increased funding since then. Maybe not as much as university bureaucrats would like, but too bad as more cuts will almost certainly come with the current situation too. But spending has gone up much, much, much more as the number of people taken in by schools (some of whom should not be going to university) and the number of staff that have little to do with actual education and the Club Med amenities have taken hold. One of my favorites is all the money poured into 6-figure jobs for administrators to try and help with diversity. Here's my suggestion, get rid of all those people and use that money to reduce the tuition and fees for modest income students so that people from modest economic backgrounds can afford to attend without racking up $100,000 in debt. That will increase diversity a lot more than having a Chief Diversity Officer or Coordinator of Minority Outreach making 5 or 10 times what the graduate student TA actually teaching the lab sessions is making.

I'd love to see several dozen universities fold up and die in the next year as people won't continue paying for it. That will cause the remaining ones to figure out how to do it efficiently and pop the education bubble.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

Add in the lazy rivers, rock climbing walls, laser tag facilities ... which cannot be used now anyway and the prices are absurd.

This is not purely the universities' fault; consumers and lenders are also very much to blame here.

For decades now, college has not been viewed just as a means to get an education; rather, it's an 'experience.' Experiences (and the friends and memories that come with them), are 'priceless' (not literally, but you get the point). If universities want to attract the best and brightest, it's not enough to just offer world class education; they must offer a unique life experience.

Combine that with the fact that anyone can get a loan for school, and you've created a nearly price-inelastic product.

Perhaps universities deserve some blame for crafting and marketing an experience rather than an education, but consumers are also guilty of demanding it (I'm personally quite guilty of this, getting an MBA completely changed my view). Lenders are guilty of financing it without doing any due diligence. The price tag from the university is just a result of all three of these things.

Twitter me

I think part of the issue lies with some people not understanding at the most basic level, the economy around the world is built on this overriding principle: there will always be a borrower and there will always be a lender. Then when we start adding in the aspects of finance, such as the time-value of money, some people's eyes glaze over because they don't want to hear the future worth of a loan, or what they are actually paying. They want to know, "Can I afford this loan?" They are also banking on the hope upon graduation, they will land into white collar jobs paying salaries within the upper middle class bracket, and, I hate using this term, it is really a gamble.

While I applaud Congress for trying to crack down on predatory lending practices, in truth, as you said, consumers and lenders are not being fully transparent, and doing due diligence.

When I was shopping around for a tractor, I thought I had settled on a tractor and looked at the financing involved given four different terms and the interest rate. Once I was able to punch in the numbers using Excel's FV and PMT functions, I was able to determine how much money would be required each month based on the years of the loan. This also shows the truth that nothing is ever really yours until you pay off the loan.

Edit: Fixed a sentence that was incorrect.

I personally disagree with your lender vs borrower principle, but I get the point. 20+ years ago, a college degree was less of a gamble, and the stakes were lower. Now the odds are worse, the cost to play is higher, and the best case scenario isn't that much different.

I still believe that consumer sentiment (or the job market) has to change before the university system does. And I don't see the job market change before consumers...

Twitter me

Perhaps universities deserve some blame for crafting and marketing an experience rather than an education, but consumers are also guilty of demanding it...

It's not just the "experience", though. Universities are creating these amenities for the purpose of attracting the unicorn students, the really top of the best and brightest that will go on to become wealthy alumni or create companies that will partner with their research arms, both of which will bring in more money down the road. I get that, but the process of attracting them is driving the price of college out of reach of the masses, the service of whom is their primary objective.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Whether or not tuition is too high is a completely different story that I don't want to get into now, but I get it if schools aren't cutting it. Its not like the quality of the education is going to be going down because of this. Its not like the value of the degree is taking a hit because of this virus, so I get it for not decreasing that cost.

That being said, if you aren't allowing students on campus, there is no way you should even think to charge Room and Board. I say this, because I know the UNC system, which controls all the public schools in NC is still planning on charging all freshmen R&B this year, and that's..... bullshit

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

God, that would annoy me even more. Our next door neighbor goes to Towson. She is back home now. Was saying that all they did was reduce room and board somewhat even though everything was closed and she could not stay on campus. Will at least say one thing for Towson though, she told me what she was paying at it was nowhere near as bad as I had expected for out-of-state. No idea how good or bad Towson is overall or within her major, which is more important than overall ranking, but it seems to be, relatively-speaking, a bargain.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

It's not BS if they are planning for the students to be on campus in August, which as of now is the plan. The plan is to have a threshold of positive cases before transitioning to online. I believe it's 700 as of right now.

I know the UNC system also... my youngest is returning for his senior year next month, and that's what they've been told as of yesterday. Obviously that could change. Actually, it probably will change because we're pretty much collectively batshit right now. We also received a pro-rated refund from his meal plan from last semester.

On the other topic, of a gap year for freshmen... if any of my children had graduated HS in 2020 I would put my foot down on a 4 yr undergrad experience starting this fall. You'd either be working, going to CC, or maybe even AmeriCorps.

Leonard. Duh.

On the other topic, of a gap year for freshmen... if any of my children had graduated HS in 2020 I would put my foot down on a 4 yr undergrad experience starting this fall. You'd either be working, going to CC, or maybe even AmeriCorps.

I knew we'd find something we agree on! ;)

In all seriousness, I think every freshman should be doing this and I would do the same as Leonard if I had a kid graduating in 2020. My coworker is thrilled that her son's private out of state college (freshman in the fall) is doing all online. I'm thinking to myself, why are you going to pay at least $40k a year to have your son sit in his childhood bedroom and take basic classes? It would be so much better to knock out all that stuff at a community college and you'll still have the same "freshman" experience next year because everyone else will be stuck at home too for the 2020-2021 year.

Here's a big question...if you take the gap year and do CC or go work, who are you competing against for entry in fall 2021? Assume a lot of kids don't actually go to college. And the next class is graduating. And the school has downsized due to budgetary concerns. Do you get accepted next year, after a year off? Or do you take what you know is a sure thing, accept the enrollment, and "go to college" this fall? It all but guarantees your spot next year.

Looking at it another way, people all have different ideas of the American dream and what they want for their kids. One of the issues with US Soccer is the belief that college is such a necessity for kids. Parents want their kid to go to college and get a degree, and soccer can assist with that either by scholarship or acceptance into a school that otherwise wouldn't be attainable. But the back side is those kids are not in the soccer system. Point being, parents have a dream of a college degree, and most won't change their minds. There isn't an alternate path, and when things go sideways people cannot adapt.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Positive results from the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine candidate:

https://www.msn.com/en-my/news/world/pfizer-reports-encouraging-very-ear...

Study volunteers given either a low or medium dose, in two shots about a month apart, had immune responses in the range expected to be protective, when compared to some COVID-19 survivors, according to the preliminary results.

As with any vaccine, a long way to go, but the early results are encouraging. Mounting a sufficient immune response is the first hurdle. If these results hold in larger (Phase II and III) trials, it's great news.

Goodness, I saw "positive results from vaccine candidate" and thought it wasn't working.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Positively toward the negative.

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

Made me laugh.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

This is the third (fourth if you include SinoVac in China) vaccine candidate that has positive efficacy results from phase I testing, right? I'm pretty bullish about getting a vaccine widely available in 2021.

USC just announced online only for the fall. We are about to see some big boy schools cancel fall sports here soon.

KTLA

I think they are all waiting for someone else to go first.

Once the first school goes, the conferences will have to respond and that will force the hand of the rest.

True. I think it will be one of the California schools but one of the Florida schools may do it too. It is getting really bad down there. Over 10k confirmed cases today alone.

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

This isn't good. A Penn State student living off campus has died of COVID19. He was 21. They are doing contact tracing to find out who he was in contact with.

Penn State

Saw this today. First confirmed PSU student to die from the 'rona. Sucks.

Died of respiratory failure. Was he placed on the ventilator?

Went into the city of Jacksonville today for the first time since mask mandate and it's amazing how requiring people to wear a mask will get them to wear a mask. The county doesn't have a mask mandate and I rarely see anyone wearing one.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

briefly went into ACE this a.m., the one on Hwy 1 north of Moultrie Cr near the new fire station...half of employees with no mask; 3/4 of patrons with no mask; several people there are older than me.

Here is a good article from WSJ.
Yes, editorial section so don't take this as the data. Use it as the stepping stone to find the data and examine it yourself.

What it does do is explain more elegantly than I have seen the details on the relationship between the density of virus particles expressed, amount of virus particles it take to produce an infection, and how to create environmental mitigating factors such as length of time of exposure, and other ways to reduce risk.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-exactly-do-you-catch-covid-19-there-is-a-growing-consensus-11592317650?mod=trending_now_pos1

This is going to be great for the ACC.

This is troubling, and hopefully not common nationally, the big spike here in Dare Co is mostly being linked to one large gathering (27 of the recent cases)

This week we have experienced some disturbing and irresponsible behavior from individuals who are being called by our team members regarding isolation and quarantine. We are required to contact individuals who have either tested positive for COVID-19 or determined to be a direct contact of a laboratory confirmed positive case. This week our callers have been hung up on and spoken to inappropriately when they have called. Additionally, people have refused to cooperate, refused to provide critical information for contact tracing and indicated they will not comply with quarantine and isolation orders.

https://www.darenc.com/Home/Components/News/News/6422/1483

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

Given the wide spread disregard for masking and the obviously political bent reaction to this virus has taken, this comes as no surprise to me. Give them liberty, and give them death! if that's what they so strongly desire, but please, leave the rest of us out of your narcissistic world. That is where I am today.

Reel men fish on Wednesdays

Except it's more like "Give them liberty, give us and our loved ones death"

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

Freedom for me, not freedom for thee

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

They need to start slapping these people with subpoenas like some localities are starting to do. If they don't comply, start issuing increasing daily fines.

An idea whose time has come. I'm all for it.

Reel men fish on Wednesdays

I really wish people would do the right thing but I am not on board with issuing subpoenas Willy nilly either.

Do the contact tracers have some official way to prove they aren't scammers? Honestly, as many spam called as I get, a tracer could get hung up on by me. Anybody had experience they could share?

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

They should call maybe 3 times and leave voicemails and if you don't respond after that the gloves should come off. The time for playing is over.

I do not even answer my phone unless I know the person calling very well.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

This is no surprise. Attending a large party. I am going to guess it was mostly young adults as the article said friend and not family member.
Then the community gets blamed. Shut down the beach.

Same for Myrtle. Lots of cases blamed by Myrtle Beach. It wasn't the families at the beach. It was the extracurriculR activities going on other places in the town.

The beach itself is perfect for all the things described that will make it very hard to spread the virus. Open air compounded by breeze for entropy effect, sun and distance.

I want these news reports to be accurate because people are not recognizing the specific behaviors that are the factors.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

Wife's family dropped by on Sunday.

Thursday morning I texted my wife I was feeling a bit under the weather.

Thursday afternoon wife's cousin test positive for covid. Great.

Got tested this afternoon... Not bad but definitely not fun. Can check portal for results after 24 hours they say. ... Weirdly not nervous, bracing for impact at this point.

Keep us posted. Hope you're well

Just saw this about the research from JPMorgan Chase tracking credit card spending in restaurants versus supermarkets and how it may be predictive of increases in Covid-19 cases.

Restaurant spending 1
Restaurant spending 2

"Analyst Jesse Edgerton analyzed data from 30 million Chase credit and debit cardholders and from Johns Hopkins University's case tracker. He found that increased restaurant spending in a state predicted a rise in new infections there three weeks later."

"Edgerton also gave the caveat that the states that are now seeing a surge in new infections share other factors outside of higher restaurant spending."

Definitely pointing out correlation, not implying causation. Makes sense that increased in-restaurant vs in-grocery store spending may be indicative of general attitudes towards social distancing in an area.

You can Google "JPMorgan COVID-19 tracker" and download a pdf of their data.

"Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill our heart with tolerance."
-Stan Lee

"Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
-Ron Swanson

"11-0, bro"
-Hunter Carpenter (probably)

Read the article, dude.

Leonard. Duh.

Look at the number of dead people, dude.

Glad you found an article on a site where anyone can publish an article that fits your personal thinking...

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Did you read it?

Yes. And?

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

I started reading it but couldn't get past the bullshit in section 1. Maybe if I can stomach it, I'll read more.

O ok. Thanks

I am not you. So I am incapable of thinking at the level you are when it comes to something that almost directly correlates with your training.

Is this guy an idiot or a liar or both? He seems to come from a reputable source?

It's an opinion from an immunologist's perspective... with a touch of common sense, in my opinion. I'd love to see your more informed critique when you get some time.

Leonard. Duh.

Stadler is a former University of Bern director of immunology. He's not just anyone. You obviously didn't read it... I guess you're scared it might NOT "fit your personal thinking.".

I read everything... including the panic pornography.

Leonard. Duh.

I did read it. Did I make any comments about it? No. None good or bad. But I read it. But since I didn't fall head over heels in love with what he's saying means that I didn't, right? I didn't say you shouldn't read it. Didn't poo poo all over it. Just that it's a random site where anyone can post. Those tend to be interesting places with interesting perspectives. That's all. Sorry you didn't switch me to your thinking....

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Man this article is batshit.

The section about experts saying there is "no immunity" is completely taken out of context. What Fauci and other experts mean is that there is no public mechanism of immunity, i.e. vaccine. Not that your body can't fight it - it obviously can.

He hates on the modelers and arrogantly states that he knows more than them.

Epidemiologist also fell for the myth that there was no immunity in the population. They also didn't want to believe that coronaviri were seasonal cold viri that would disappear in summer.

I got news for this guy - it ain't disappearing in the summer. I live in Texas: it's hot and the virus is raging.

He brings up Ioannidis at Stanford, a guy who has made a career of swimming against the stream and says

Ioannidis is certainly not a conspiracy theorist who just wants to swim against the stream; nontheless he is now being criticised, because the antibody tests used were not extremely precise. With that, his critics admit that they do not have such tests yet. And aside, John P A Ioannidis is such a scientific heavy-weight that all German virologists combined area a light-weight in comparison.

I implore you to go over to science Twitter and see what you can find. This guys test and scientific approach for this study was such a sham. His "random" sample was a questionnaire on facebook. Who do you think is going to show up to get tested at that point? People who had been sick and were curious as to whether they had CV19. This study has been thoroughly trounced by the scientific community. Yet this dude is still out there saying it's a good paper and the only thing wrong with it was that the antibody test was no accurate enough, but other scientists don't have a better test, so therefore Ioannidis was right the whole time. What kind of logic is that.

This article is the shit you have to watch out for. It's a so called scientist using his status to lend credibility to political talking points.

Calling Fauci "Tony" like he's on a first name basis with him. Sure....

I seriously can't believe its July, a good 4 months after the entire world shut down, 6 or 7 months after this virus was first discovered and reported upon, cases are still exploding here in the US, and we're still dealing with a bunch of dumbasses who think this thing isn't a big deal, and we are still having asinine arguments about whether we should do the bare minimum like wearing a mask in public to protect others.

This whole experience has made it very clear that not all opinions are needed on a subject. Some are just flat wrong and should be treated as such from the start, because propping up the opposing viewpoint to everything the experts have been telling us from the start has only done us harm in the US, and has probably cost us tens of thousands of lives that otherwise would have been spared.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

This guy is an expert immunologist. Dr. Ioannidis at Stanford is an expert epidemiologist at Stanford. Dr. Joshua Sharfstein at Johns Hopkins is an expert. Sunetra Gupta is a professor of epidemiology at Oxford.

That bunch of dumbasses? This whole experience has actually made it clear that opposing viewpoints ARE needed on a subject. Especially when the subject is cancelling the world over a virus. The experts you are referring to leaned on a model early on that has pretty much been destroyed, and Fauci/CDC have changed their tune like 8 times.

For the record, I've never said this isn't a concern or a big deal. I just believe we miscalculated on counter measures... drastically. Carry on , though. Let the downvotes and insults commence. If you can't handle an opposing viewpoint, you must be worried about solidity of your own viewpoint.

Leonard. Duh.

If you can't handle an opposing viewpoint, you must be worried about solidity of your own viewpoint.

.....maybe he's just worried about his wife and kid?? parents?

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Wife and parents I get, but kids 0-14 are around 7x more likely to die of the 2019 flu than COVID.

Leonard. Duh.

Sorry, you don't get to tell people who or what they should or should not be worried about. You don't know who's kids have pre-existing conditions that could put them in danger. Dig your head out of the sand, thanks.

Obviously, I'm excluding anyone in any age group with a pre-existing condition.

Leonard. Duh.

And Dr. Didier Raoult is an expert in infectious disease who ran a deeply flawed and manipulated study on hydroxychloroquine, published within 24 hours of receipt at a journal where one of the co-authors is Editor in Chief. The study was garbage an fueled a useless rush on a drug that other people need for legitimate conditions. Turns out HCQ makes COVID-19 worse. But yeah, he's an expert with a "viewpoint."

Everyone can have an agenda and can spout flawed nonsense. So many of the problems we're having with this pandemic is that opinions get treated as facts. Reliable, tested, vetted data are facts. Sometimes facts change as we get a better understanding, but there's a reason why your expert posted on Medium rather than a peer-reviewed journal.

And this is why the credibility of the media and other officials is so important to maintain. Unfortunately, everyone is just presenting opinions that support their narrative rather objectively reporting facts. I frankly don't believe anything anyone says right now because of all the misinformation that is out there.

there's a reason why your expert posted on Medium rather than a peer-reviewed journal.

Can't emphasize this enough. The author's analysis would never survive scrutiny, just like how the Ioannidis study was utterly destroyed. He couldn't publish this in a magazine, much less a scientific journal.

And he tries to account for that by suggesting that there's some conspiracy among scientists to keep people worried about this virus. The line that really makes my blood boil is this one referring to epidemiologists.

Let's leave them their hopes β€” I've never seen a scientific branch that manoeuvred itself so much into the offside

The insinuation that scientists are somehow benefitting from people being scared of this virus is bonkers. I haven't been allowed in my lab since March. I'm getting no work done: no experiments, no results, no papers. Meanwhile my funding is bleeding away. I would like nothing more than this virus to be a hoax, just so that I can get back to work.

are you at UC Davis? I'm going to take a guess your research is in plant biology/crop research.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

And if you are, do you know my friend Mike Parella?

Reel men fish on Wednesdays

I've heard of Mike, but never met him. Different department / building.

Didn't know, thought you might with him being what, Dean of Agriculture? Haven't seen him in a good while, but we worked together for Dr. Kok at VT back in the early 70s. Great guy, good fisherman.

Reel men fish on Wednesdays

Wow, you are right on the nose, except that I haven't updated my profile in a while. I went to UC Davis for my PhD in plant biology and graduated in 2017.

Now I'm at UT Austin.

Ah. Nice. Congrats on the position at UT Austin.

I went from VT undergrad bio alumnus to UC graduate school alumnus too (UCSD in biomedical sciences). Nice to see someone with a fairly similar trajectory.

The plant biology was relatively easy guess when you know the UC system . The reputation of the UC Davis plant bio department is highly regarded, arguably the best in the world.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

How many times does it need to be said that as data becomes available models/predictions/guidance should and will change? You keep pointing to the fact that recommendations have changed since the beginning of this pandemic like it's a bad thing.

There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.

Let the downvotes and insults commence. If you can't handle an opposing viewpoint, you must be worried about solidity of your own viewpoint.

When you have actual peer reviewed scientific research and studies to back up the constant bullshit you spew on here, by all means, I will listen, but until then, I'll continue to call it out for the bullshit it is. Fact of the matter is, the data and models we are getting from those experts are piling up in the one direction you are adamantly opposed to, and quite frankly, its getting tiring seeing these threads continually derailed because you still refuse to realize that this is serious.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

its getting tiring seeing these threads continually derailed because you still refuse to realize that this is serious.

Who's derailing the thread? I posted one opinion piece by a credible scientist and you and others filled the air with cries of "BULLSHIT!" and the F-bombs. (Actually mostly you.)

Leonard. Duh.

Beda Stadler is considered "the most controversial professor in Switzerland." Your "please view the other side of the argument!" example is the dude who prides himself on being a contrarian. That's not usually how you build a counter-example in the face of overwhelming evidence. Also, as pointed out by someone else, this article is almost a month old.

Cases are exploding, deaths are not... which is a good thing.

at the national level...locally, Florida hospitalizations are 40% higher than the April/May peaks and deaths, which are are tracking about 2 weeks behind are an eyelash below those peaks. These increases are not in proportion to the increases in cases, but they are at or soon will be at their worst.

Give it time, those that do die from it are typically hospitalized for a while first, you'll likely see deaths tracking up sooner than later.

In LA County, for example, as of two days ago, hospitalizations have jumped 41% in the past 3 weeks, with covid-19 patients in ICUs up 35% over a two week period.

They are looking at running out of ICU beds in 2 - 3 weeks.

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

I particularly love this line:

"Those young and healthy people who currently walk around with a mask on their faces would be better off wearing a helmet instead"

I can only draw one of two conclusions about this statement:
A. He still doesn't get that wearing a mask isn't only about protecting you, it's about protecting other people, especially the vulnerable.
B. He's being purposefully misleading to prove his larger point.

How can you trust anything else he says if either is true?

He brings up Ioannidis at Stanford, a guy who has made a career of swimming against the stream and says

I'm sure you'll be shocked to find out that Ioannidis' early critiques of the death models were one of Leonard's go to's in the earlier Coronavirus discussion threads.

The death models that have largely been indicated to have been completely wrong. Not just prediction wise, but construction/input-wise as well.

Leonard. Duh.

He predicted 40,000 deaths.

And very time you bring the model, I bring up the actual total. The models do not drive what occurs in the world. But you keep harping on the models. Look at the actual data, and not the models. Those are REAL numbers and REAL people, not just something spit out of a computer.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

I literally stopped reading at The coronavirus is slowly retreating.

Because, quite frankly, here in the United States it is not retreating, it is rapidly expanding at a faster rate than it has before. So if the literal first statement of the article is bullshit, it gives a great indication of the rest.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Damn, you beat me by 5 minutes.

The guy may indeed be a blowhard. But, I have observed two factions since this thing started. Those proclaiming all sorts of panic inducing scenarios and those that thought it was an overblown flu. In the end both sides will claim they were right when in fact nobody has been right because the truth is in the middle. My only advice is to not immediately dismiss articles such as this, but use it to develop a more well rounded outlook of the realistic situation.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

It was literally the first sentence of the article. When your entire premise is built upon a lie, its not a premise worth considering.

And I again repeat, when all of the industry experts are consistent with their message regarding this disease, its not worth listening to the counterargument.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

The article was published June 10th. The first line is "The coronavirus is slowly retreating". This thing belongs on /r/agedlikemilk.

I have a cousin who worked for FEMA for over 25 years (was a high level government employee for the department who oversaw work all over the country) and is now doing contract work for governments all over the world. His most recent contracts have been with multiple large cities across the United States for the purpose of helping coordinate potential emergency efforts in case of a major outbreak.

One troubling thing he mentioned this weekend while we were together was that in most major metropolitan areas where numbers are beginning to rise a bit people who test positive for COVID-19 are not required to let the medical professionals know if they were at a rally/protest in the past couple of weeks. What this means is that it is becoming increasingly difficult for medical professionals in these areas to accurately assess where the outbreak might have originated and where it might be going.

Is coronavirus over yet?

Everyone knows you can't spread CV at a protest, unless it's one about keeping everything locked down.

/s in case it isn't obvious.

Apparently it wasn't obvious, as someone downvoted it. Upvoted to counter.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Some good news: Covid deaths continue to drop. Last week (6/27-7/4) we "only" saw 313 covid deaths, the lowest since the week of March 12th! Source - CDC.

Also, https://covid19.healthdata.org/ has started including projects for mask wearing vs not mask wearing. Another reminder that masks save lives:

Twitter me

I asked this a bit earlier but I think it got lost in the shuffle - can someone with some knowledge comment as to why we are seeing a big increase in cases but deaths continue to fall? I know there is a lag, but we are past 3 weeks since the big case spike started and the data I've seen indicates that death rates are falling or at worst steady. Is this due to increased testing, better treatments, combination of both, ??? Looks promising nonetheless.

It's probably a combination of a lot of things. Increased testing will lead to increased positives, but in many spiking areas, % positive is also increasing (which is bad). I do think that we've gotten a lot better at treating it. New drug protocols including remdesivir and dexamethasone certainly seem to be helping. I've also read we've gotten smarter about when and how to put people on ventilators.

Big increase in testing does mean more cases. Deaths continue to fall because the virus is weakening. Social distancing measures to protect vulnerable population have worked.

Leonard. Duh.

the virus is weakening

What does this even mean? Are you suggesting the virus has mutated into something less dangerous? Are you suggesting that we are getting better at treating the virus? This is a really vague statement that is at best misleading, at worst completely false.

Twitter me

This is a really vague statement that is at best misleading, at worst completely false.

This happens quite often with his comments.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Leonard in Coronavirus threads = DCWilson in recruiting threads.

"Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill our heart with tolerance."
-Stan Lee

"Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
-Ron Swanson

"11-0, bro"
-Hunter Carpenter (probably)

I wonder if COVID-19 has an efficient/effective passing offense.

"For those who have passed, for those to come, reach for excellence."

Are masks effective or efficient?

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

What evidence is there that the virus is weakening?

Virus is weakening? Cite your source. Otherwise, more BS. It's getting old.

Much of the increase is coming from younger people, who are now out and about in society as things reopen. They're a lot less likely to die, which is why deaths remain fairly low, but it means transmission is still rampant. Social distancing only works if people continue to adhere to it. By and large, a lot of the population is getting impatient and starting to act recklessly. You're seeing that as some states have started to reverse their opening plans.

And it really doesn't help that the COVID deniers and the ones trying to drum up controversy about this being a hoax are routinely given equal billing to experts who have spent their entire careers studying and readying for this kind of pandemic. The amount of anti-intellectual behavior I'm seeing lately where people are actively on the attack toward anyone who has done actual research into this is, quite frankly, terrifying regarding the future of this country. The experts are not our enemies, they're trying to get us through this.

The amount of backlash right now toward something as simple as wearing a mask for the common good is incredibly frustrating. This pandemic has shown just how broken of a society we are right now.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

You are mischaracterizing my posts. I'm not a COVID-denier, or whatever, and I've certainly not witnessed anyone suffering backlash for wearing a mask. If anything, anyone who even remotely suggests that masks and the way they're being used are not that effective for well people, are backlashed to oblivion. I've certainly not berated anyone for wearing a mask. I believe in personal responsibility. If you believe that wearing a mask in public keeps you and others around you safe... by all means, wear a mask,.

Leonard. Duh.

If anything, anyone who even remotely suggests that masks and the way they're being used are not that effective for well people, are backlashed to oblivion.

Dear god man, just wear the fucking mask. Its not that hard, and its to protect everyone. Why is this so fucking hard for you to understand? And lastly, when all experts disagree with your belief, you are the one who is wrong, not the experts. Wear the mask.

You are mischaracterizing my posts. I'm not a COVID-denier,

your actions and postings on here over the last 3-4 months show this statement is bullshit

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Your condescension and profanity has shown me the light. Thanks, dude.

Leonard. Duh.

Oh so now you care about someone being condescending in this thread! Lets take a look through some of your gems already posted in this same one.....

I guess you're scared it might NOT "fit your personal thinking.".

I would love to see my state compromise and reopen everything, but maintain a mask order. I would wear a mask 24/7. I'd wear a mask in the shower, and standing by myself on top of Mt Mitchell. If masks work as well as claimed, there shouldn't be a problem.

Since we have seatbelt laws, why are you still making me drive 25 mph on the interstate when you know we can go 65 mph and be OK?

If there's a vaccine ready for mass distribution in under 10 years for COVID-19, I'll buy a new laptop just so I can eat it.

Honestly, I hope you're right. Because TeamFauci dangles that vaccine carrot in front of the going back to normal horse all day long. IF one is widely available in 2021 as you say, there really won't be any more excuses.

Yeah, but... I could go Guitarman on this and claim small sample size doesn't prove much.

Dude, bless your heart. I imagine the world has been a scary place for you these last few months. The death rate or IFR as reported by the CDC is about 0.25... and that's dropping.

Sorry for sounding condescending. I'm actually sympathetic to anyone and everyone being sucked in to the panic-demic that has resulted from the actual pandemic.

I read everything... including the panic pornography.

If you can't handle an opposing viewpoint, you must be worried about solidity of your own viewpoint.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

If you believe that wearing a mask in public keeps you and others around you safe... by all means, wear a mask,.

It's been shown with great evidence that masks reduce the rate of infection. There is nothing to believe. It's facts of reality.

It's shameful to even suggest that there is some dichotomy of belief here on what is better for your friends, family, neighbors and fellow citizens. If you want to prevent the virus from ravaging onward, wear a mask, stay distanced, and minimize contact time.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

The virus is weakening in that the death rate is going down, and the increase in cases is young people who can fight off the disease. Herd immunity is starting to take effect in the NE states like New York and New Jersey as serum studies are indicating up to 30% antibodies.

Also, not to get political, but some of the states who are reversing their lockdowns like AZ, CA, and TX are seeing an astonishing increase in border counties. If you combine the cases in Yuma County in AZ and Imperial County in CA, that number is more than the number of new cases in 25 states. Just take a look at those states CDC dashboards and get a map. We're now having to deal with Mexico's wave as they are a little late to the party.

I am going to stop. I've incited enough rage for a Monday, and Thread XIII is bad luck. As if...

Leonard. Duh.

The virus is weakening in that the death rate is going down

"Virus is weakening" has a specific scientific meaning in that there is a molecular change to the virus that impedes its ability to infect a host. Your assertion is wrong.

Also, not to get political, but some of the states who are reversing their lockdowns like AZ, CA, and TX are seeing an astonishing increase in border counties.

Funny how you leave out Florida, which is basically in worse shape right now than Italy was when it was the center of the whole epidemic.

Also, the data disagree. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html

We're now having to deal with Mexico's wave as they are a little late to the party

Our borders are closed and have been for a long time. This isn't an immigration issue. Rural hospitals are overwhelmed, which is an indictment of our health care system, but this is

Let's not gloss over that the border counties in AZ and TX (didn't check CA) are not the ones with the highest rate of increase either. False narrative...

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Yeah I wasn't even going to touch how false that claim is. It's not even remotely associated with reality.

In regards to California, LA, Orange, and Riverside counties (nonborder) has highest number of infections total. Imperial county (1 of 2 border counties) is currently the highest rate of new infections. San Diego county (other border county) is 17th for new infections. There is a trend in CA of non-highly populated farming counties (such as Imperial) having super high rates at the moment.

Based on the fact that more US/Mexico border crossings occur in San Diego County than any other US county, it would take courage to suggest border crossings are a major influence on the rise of viral infections. But perhaps, there is more nuanced and critical data that exists that I have not yet seen.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

Replying to the "virus is weakening" assertion - recent data from a team at Baylor (as described in the Houston Chronicle) is that a strain of virus in the Houston area is more aggressive via spike protein mutations. There are more spike proteins on these virions and they are more stable, therefore infecting human hosts more easily.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/coro...

"A summary of the data thus far suggests that this strain has gained a fitness advantage over the original and is more transmissible as a result," said Joseph Petrosino, Baylor College of Medicine chair of molecular virology and microbiology. "It is safe to say this version is more infectious."

Petrosino said that although Baylor hasn't yet conducted a surveillance study, the area rate of positive tests and increase in hospitalizations point to a significantly higher prevalence of the virus strain now. He said Baylor is finding the mutated strain in as many as 80 percent of viruses it analyzes.

Houston Methodist researchers reported the strain was prevalent in the Houston area in a paper in mid-May. The paper said 70 percent of the specimens examined, taken from COVID-19 patients treated at Methodist from early March to March 30, showed a mutation to the spike proteins the coronavirus uses to attach to and enter human respiratory cells.

The week before, researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory reported on the mutation. They said it doesn't make people sicker, but appears to facilitate the spread of the virus.

So while it is possible that a virus can mutate in a way that weakens it, that is an evolutionary disadvantage and those strains will die out. Mutations that promote spread and infectivity will rise to the top because they are more competitive.

We all know that anything out of Baylor is "better in every facet" /S

Haha. But in all seriousness, Baylor College of Medicine is (almost) completely distinct from Baylor University. It's a biomedical research powerhouse.

There's also this study that came out a couple of weeks ago. Probably behind a paywall, but the abstract provides the take home.

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30820-5

We found that the G614 variant grows to higher titer as pseudotyped virions. In infected individuals G614 is associated with lower RTPCR cycle thresholds, suggestive of higher upper respiratory tract viral loads, although not with increased disease severity

Seems to be a common theme with this virus: mutations arise which increase virulence (especially affecting the spike protein) and gives these strains a selective advantage to spread through the population. Most of these studies say that this is not accompanied by increased disease severity. But they also don't report decreased disease severity. This is an important distinction from SARS, at least with the variants they have characterized so far, where the dominant variants were associated with less severe outcomes.

We found that the G614 variant grows to higher titer as pseudotyped virions. In infected individuals G614 is associated with lower RTPCR cycle thresholds, suggestive of higher upper respiratory tract viral loads, although not with increased disease severity

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Translation: We found a particular coronavirus having a genetic mutation referred to as G614 to grow better than other coronaviruses not having that mutation, as determined by its ability to grow into higher densities. People infected with the G614 coronavirus have high density of virus in their lungs, as determined by an experimental technique referred to as RT-PCR. Despite higher densities of virus, the infected individuals did not experience worse disease outcomes.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

Your post was imprecise and made it seem like people were just flooding over the border while sick. Essential travel, including for medical care, has of course been allowed. The same article you link says many of the people crossing are Americans, so I remain unconvinced by your assertion that we are dealing with Mexico's problem. Also refer to my link to actual data. The border areas are not the biggest problem. They may present a local challenge but they are not driving statewide numbers.

So, where are the Americans who cross the border getting the virus from?

Leonard. Duh.

Where are the Americans who DON'T cross the border getting the virus from?

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

From the article:

"But Van Gorder, Coyle and other officials in California say this isn't an immigration issue.

Most of the coronavirus patients crossing the border, they say, are Americans.

In a call with state hospital leaders earlier this month, the head of California's emergency medical services authority, Dr. David Duncan, described the steady stream of patients coming to Imperial County as "gas on the fire."

"We've got this continual flow of Covid coming across the border in the form of US citizens that carry and continue to escalate and fuel the Covid pressures that we see," Duncan said."

"Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill our heart with tolerance."
-Stan Lee

"Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
-Ron Swanson

"11-0, bro"
-Hunter Carpenter (probably)

Do you think if we didn't do the tests, that the virus would go away? Like the number on the ticker is empowering the virus? And if we didn't know, then people just wouldn't be sick or have it at all?

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

I can speak from a logic viewpoint without any medical background on my end. From my wife at their weekly meetings, specifically in NOVA, there is not much of a testing shortage anymore at their practice. They are still screening people, but will test anyone they believe could have it or has been exposed. They don't need to follow specific guidelines to limit the testing anymore. Previously the only people they were testing had prolonged exposure or an onset of symptoms. Now people with limited or no symptoms are being confirmed as they can get tested. With the number of asymptomatic cases, these are not as serious typically and would not result in deaths. As such I think this trend is more due to the larger availability of testing and more people testing positive that previously would not have received the test. It would be interesting to see if someone is creating a dataset comparing "serious" cases versus death.

Separately, and based on no data nor experience, I think healthcare is treating it better now and have learned what methods work better. When it hit, doctors were trying whatever they heard was effective at the time, but now they have actual experiences. I did hear more doctors (hearsay from wife) are avoiding intubation as quickly as they noticed patients were having more difficulty coming off of it. At the beginning some hospitals were intubating immediately at any signs of trouble, due to seriousness of complications and fear of aerosolizing the virus using other means to help breathing.

I've been asking the same question as well, and have been unable to find a convincing answer. My theories, which could be completely incorrect are:

  • Those at high risk are taking extreme precautions, while most of the spread is among those who are at low risk of death (I have to stress that I have only anecdotal evidence to support this and it could be completely wrong).
  • We're getting better at treating the virus
  • Better testing (in terms of quality and quantity) allows individuals to make informed decisions about when to 'reenter' society.

Twitter me

You're first bullet point is the most likely explanation. It is also been confirmed by numerous doctors/hospital administrators out of Texas, when they were seeing the cases spike in the last few weeks.

The majority of new cases are in the less vulnerable and younger population. This is the population that has started taking more risk, being more active and social.

The testing is now available to those with mild or no symptoms. It is likely those cases always existed, but we are now able to find and test them, so they add to the total case count, but not add to the daily death counts.

So, I think everyone seems to agree that these are the likely explanations and the data tends to support it.

I also want to address Leonards suggestion that the virus is weakening. This is a theory that I have heard. It is possible that the virus has become less lethal over time. Reasons for this are that the mutations that are more lethal do not spread as far and wide over time, because those infected die at a higher rate and are more isolated. In contrast, mutations that are less lethal can spread further and wider over time because thsoe infected have a higher survival rate, and may result in milder symptoms, and therefore, those infected are not isolated in the same way and can spread the virus at a higher rate. We do not know if this is the case. There has been a lot of talk of tracking the mutations, but that is tough to do, plus it is very difficult to determine which mutations are more or less lethal. We just do not have the data for it. So at this point, it is a theory, it is logical, but at this point is simply inferred from trends.

I have seen several doctors/scientists in Italy and some in US say that the average viral load that is being seen in positive COVID test samples is orders of magnitude lower now than it was back in April. Does that mean the virus is weakening...well maybe, but I think another explanation would be the social distancing. Back in March and April, especially in the nursing homes and other hard hit areas, people were likely experiencing much more direct exposure to the virus, making their infection more severe and with a higher viral load. Now, with how strict the social distancing has become and with what we have learned, the vulnerable population is much more protected, and even if they are exposed and infected, it may be smaller and more indirect exposure, thus a much smaller viral load.

All of that said...I'm not going to worry about the cases going up unless I see deaths going up. So far that has not been the case, and that is very very good news!

All of that said...I'm not going to worry about the cases going up unless I see deaths going up. So far that has not been the case, and that is very very good news!

The problem with this mindset is that by the time the deaths start going back up, it's too late.

There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.

Obviously. I didn't say we are out of the woods. But I am choosing to be optimistic that deaths are not spiking in correlation with the recent increase in cases. The spike in deaths may still come, but we haven't seen it so far. Given the damage done to economy, to businesses, to hospitals, to education, I think it is wise to not overreact to any trends. NC, where I live, has seen a spike in cases, but hospitalizations have increased at a much lower rate than cases (hospitalization rates continue to go down), the doubling rate of cases continues to slow down, and the average daily deaths are relatively flat or slightly declining. That is all good news. The cases were always going to go up eventually, because the economy could not be totally shut down and the shut down had to be lifted. None of this is ideal, but there is good news in some of the current trends and data. Not ignoring the increasing count, but I am choosing to be optimistic about the positive trends.

All of that said...I'm not going to worry about the cases going up unless I see deaths going up. So far that has not been the case, and that is very very good news!

On paper it sounds good that, as long as the deaths aren't going up that everything is ok. But that's also ignoring the lifelong complications that many patients who recover are left with because of COVID, including reduced lung capacity as well as an increased rate of circulatory complications, with upticks in strokes and heart attacks. As long as those are there, it is still very much a bad thing that this virus is rampantly spreading throughout the US, and should be of concern to everyone.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

I agree, the midterm and longterm effects of virus are now the most concerning to me. And we just don't know exactly what that looks like yet.

Are those complications felt across all age groups, or are they mostly limited to those in the older age groups, those with compromised immune systems, or those who were intubated lengthy times and had difficult initial recoveries?

If it is true that majority of new cases are in the less vulnerable population and they are being hospitalized and intubated at much lower rates, then will they experience the midterm and longterm health effects you mentioned? Possibly, but also possibly not? I don't think we know yet. Something to watch and be concerned about, most definitely.

Are those complications felt across all age groups, or are they mostly limited to those in the older age groups, those with compromised immune systems, or those who were intubated lengthy times and had difficult initial recoveries?

Oh actually quite the opposite. From the studies I've seen, the uptick in circulatory issues are being seen mostly in the young and otherwise healthy category. Thats the one that really has me worried.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Definitely worrisome. Unfortunately, we probably won't know for a long time what that means, exactly. From very early on, when it was being reported that HIV drug cocktails were showing some success, that led me to think there was a chance the virus could have long term health effects. That has always been the scariest thing to consider, in my opinion. Hoipefully, we can understand those effects sooner rather than later.

This is just a general comment to the entire community about the coronavirus threads. It seems to me that anytime someone tries to make a comment that highlights either the negative or positive data/trends/news surrounding the virus, that many of the replies are geared towards counter arguments. And then a back and forth ensues, which often gets heated. We should all try and make it a general practice in our replies to point out the statements, facts, and opinions that you can agree with, while also presenting any counter-arguments. Not everything has to be a contentious, I'm right and you're wrong debate. Let's tolerate the diversity of thought and opinion.

I think my original comment in this sub-thread presented a broad and logical point of view. Immediately, I received replies that were counter-arguments to the last sentence of my rather long comment. Take the time to reply to and address my full comment.

I wouldn't confuse people being fed up with a certain individual who refuses to have any good faith discussion about this with a general contentious tone in these threads. I definitely agree its definitely not a bad thing that death rates are remaining steady and that there is a really good conversation to be had there, but it often gets hijacked.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

My comment was a suggestion for that individual as well. Just because his comments are often the minority opinion, does not make them less valuable to the conversation. In fact, I would argue that the minority opinion is more valuable to the conversation. So the community should be more accepting of such opinions, because they are probably more widespread than you would think; and certain voices and opinions get silenced. That said, someone who clearly knows their opinions are in the minority, should consider a little more finesse at times. That is why I suggested that everyone make attempts to be more tolerant and focus on common ground in addition to the other debate.

While I agree in general, I think it's important to point out that not all comments are equal.

  • A comment like "I'm healthy and under 30, so I'm willing to take risks" is an opinion.
  • A comment sharing knowledge from an expert may still be an opinion, but is held in a higher regard (because the person who said it is an expert, and presumably better informed than the rest of us).
  • A comment like 'The virus is weakening' is at best vague, and worse wrong - either way, this is not an opinion.

For what it's worth, the final comment of your longer post is a very reasonable opinion (reasonable in the sense that it's an opinion, not a comment meant to mislead), but it's also perfectly reasonable for people to respond and say 'hey, you're not considering X, Y, and Z.'

It seems to me that anytime someone tries to make a comment that highlights either the negative or positive data/trends/news surrounding the virus, that many of the replies are geared towards counter arguments

I posted a positive comment above about decreasing death rate, and that was met with great discussion (for the most part)

Edit: phrasing and formatting

Twitter me

Agree. The aim of my comment was to suggest more tolerance and more comprehensive replies. If you don't see value in a comment that is made, then don't give it time of day and do not reply.

And to your point, some very good discussion has been taking place on these threads.

the virus is weakening. This is a theory that I have heard. It is possible that the virus has become less lethal over time.

Can you elaborate on this? Who's theory is this? On what data is it supported?

Twitter me

I cannot remember exactly where I read that logic about mutations. But the rationale is logical. As I said, no data to really support, just a theory that can be inferred.

Regarding the "viral load", I saw that several places, but one link and quote below. The part about social distancing helping to reduce the severity of infections by less direct and shorter exposures was really my own thought. Again, no data, just a possible theory that makes sense to this non-scientist. Now I have seen discussion on why some are severely impacted while others seemingly have very mild to no symptoms. Part of that discussion is the original infection and exposure. One thought is that the original infection takes place deep in the lungs causing the more severe reaction and immuno-response, while infections that are in nose, throat, eyes do not progress in the same way. That theory goes hand-in-ahdn with samll particale aerosols being able to infect, because those would be inhaled and make their way deep into lungs.

"In reality, the virus clinically no longer exists in Italy," said Alberto Zangrillo, the head of the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan in the northern region of Lombardy, which has borne the brunt of Italy's coronavirus contagion.

"The swabs that were performed over the last 10 days showed a viral load in quantitative terms that was absolutely infinitesimal compared to the ones carried out a month or two months ago," he told RAI television.

LINK

A grievance from a scientist:

When talking about science, it would be ideal to not use the term "theory" when you mean hypothesis or postulate. Scientific theories are backed by mounds of circumstantial evidence to assert their existence but often can't be proven. Evolution is a theory. Light traveling as waves and particles is a theory. Gravity is theory.

The novel coronavirus weakening is not a theory. However, when SARS-1 and MERS dissipated, there was a lot of circumstantial evidence to support a theory that the virus weakened, which was eventually proven true in lab experiments.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

Sure. Thanks. I never used the word scientific, just theory in general. Semantics, substitute any synonym for theory.

The argument can be made that there is some (probably not mounds) circumstantial evidence that the virus is behaving differently. Reasons for this have been discussed: better overall treatment, more effective social distancing, especially among vulnerable population, new infections are among the healthier population, or that there is a physical change to the virus causing it to weaken. There is data to support some of this. Their being a physical change to the virus is certainly being studied, but obviously, there is currently no doctor or scientist willing to make that claim.

So, as a point of discussion and a serious question. Why is "going to a bar" a much higher risk than "going to a restaurant"? Serious question- what is the difference if both are seated inside?

In my opinion, I feel like it's a much different environment. I think it's hard to expect bar-goers (especially college students) to keep masks on at bars at all times except for when they're drinking. And asking them to not go over and say hi to any friends they see that they didn't come to the bar with is just about an impossible task once they're slightly inebriated

And I will add β€” some Blacksburg places that are restaurants/bars are really not doing well with the whole socially distant restaurant part either... the Sharkey's and Cellar patios have been packed whenever I drive past. They're just not big enough spaces to space out the tables enough.

Harder to maintain and enforce physical separation at a bar since people tend to have to congregate to get served. Alcohol lowers inhibition and impairs judgment so it again becomes difficult to keep people properly spaced.

I'll buy your first sentence 100%... But if I go to a "restaurant" like BJ's brewhouse or BW3, and sit at an indoor table and order 3 IPA's, how is that any different from "Joe's watering hole"? If it's a proximity thing, yeah I get it. But restaurants serve alcohol too.

Hint, it's not the alcohol.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

If it's a proximity thing, yeah I get it.

its the proximity thing

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

How many people are sitting at a restaurant dining table getting bombed though? Compare that with people at a bar. People also tend to stay at a bar for longer, exposing yourself more. Bars are also louder, causing people to talk louder over the background. Talking louder expels more virus carrying droplets than a normal volume.

All of that makes sense, yes. And I guess I wasn't thinking - Champs after a VT win.. vs. a wednesday at Outback in terms of the different atmospheres.

From what I've heard, bars are more dangerous then restaurants because they tend to be louder. To compensate for the loud noise, people need to talk louder, meaning you push the air out of your mouth with more force. This increases the 6ft danger zone. The people you're talking to also need to lean in closer to hear you.


.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Stage 3 in Virginia includes this:

Bar seats and congregating areas of restaurants must be closed to patrons except for
through-traffic. Non-bar seating in the bar area (i.e., tables or counter seats that do not
line up to a bar or food service area) may be used for customer seating as long as a
minimum of six feet is provided between parties at tables.

Enforcement of that at each establishment is the issue.

This right here and there are subtle ways to encourage people to do the correct thing.

No stools at the bar, remove the foot rail. Don't have coasters there. Don't take an order unless they are in line, put a marker on the floor 6 ft apart, put an obstacle where a congregating patron would be trying to set down their glass, etc.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

I think the understanding is that a 'bar' has a lot of people standing and wandering around, whereas a 'restaurant' is a seated area. There may be other differentiating factors at the state level, such as the percentage of revenue or sales that come from alcohol vs food vs cover.

what is the difference if both are seated inside?

I don't think there is a difference.

The general idea is that a 'bar' tends to be tightly packed, with a lot of people moving around, loud music, and people shouting/projecting their voice (in order to either speak over the music or just because their drunk). Obviously, none of these behaviors are good for limiting the spread of the virus.

Twitter me

I would also think that a big difference is how you order. Seated at a table, you are rarely talking directly into the servers face when you order, but at a bar you order more face to face and sometimes end up shouting or leaning close to be heard over loud music. Face masks for patrons and face shields for bartenders/servers obviously reduce this risk, but look at the picture of the bar above in VTNerf's post and count how many of the bar patrons seem to be concerned about the welfare of the bartenders. Add in mask exceptions mentioning "while eating" or something like that and you add more chances of risky behavior.

"Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill our heart with tolerance."
-Stan Lee

"Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
-Ron Swanson

"11-0, bro"
-Hunter Carpenter (probably)

This is a valid point.

Leonard. Duh.

In Virginia, it is still not permissible,e by regulation to have common/bar space to congregate.
The regulation statesyou must still have at least 6 feet between groups that are not together.

The bar is the social congregation space, the approved seating is restaurant seating.

It is a subtle but important difference.

But the employees cannot be regulation police. It simply will not work.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

No, employees cannot be regulation police, nor should they have to be. That is the job of management and ownership of the business. The problem is that there is no bite in the mandate, so it is largely ignored. We just cannot trust some people to do the right thing just because it is the right thing, especially if they don't, or maybe most likely won't believe that it is the right thing. Spot random checks by the health dept. with the power to shut a business down for noncompliance would be a powerful motivator, though. One strike and you're out after hefty pre-enforcement notices would probably spur more businesses to require the mask for any service, be it buying a soda from the cooler, or sitting around playing the gambling machines. And employees claiming exemption from masking should be required to prove their reasons via a doctor's order, since more and more evidence shows a simple mask actually poses very little, if any, problems for folks, even most with asthma, the most common excuse I get when I bother to ask (employees, not other shoppers). I'm just getting sick and tired of the attitudes and disregard so many are showing daily. Time to get serious and make them pay or just give it all up and live with the carnage.

Reel men fish on Wednesdays

Here in Texas (before they closed bars again) they are suspending the liqueur licenses of bars that have broker the rules (mostly related to going over the allowed capacity limit).

I had been out to one of the local pubs I frequent when they were open and it was fine, the bar seats were roped off and there were only 10-15 people in there (capacity approx 100) so it was easy to distance and stay with your group of 2-3 people.

The bars that had their licenses suspended were big party spots that completely flouted the rules and were packed to capacity. These places have door guys anyway so they got what they deserved because those door guys have clickers anyway, so should have cut it off.

VA regulation states to the business that the business itself is not to enforce the rule on customers, that is the job of the government. Businesses enforce the rule on employees.

Also, no gaming and no playgrounds, as well these games would be a congregation point.

Games are not yet permitted so, if the business has opened their gaming machines, that is definitely an enforceable point.

Health department already does checks and enforcement.

I do not have any employees making a claim against wearing a mask. I do have other business people I know that do have employees with a valid claim. They range more than you think, from 2 people that developed skin conditions that required a specialist to treat, a claustrophobic case ( which was even unknown prior to that point) amount others. Some just cannot tolerate it. Yeah, I know, seems strange, but I've got a pretty good sample size. Of course this is, all anecdotal.

One of the employees, the owner had to furlough them because people kept threatening physical violence on them because they could not wear a mask. Can't afford to keep that up.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

The state is not enforcing anything of the sort and I haven't heard word one about any health department checking or action at all. Your source on that claim? Since the majority of employees in this area do not wear masks, what's the point of toothless mandates? I never knew so many people had asthma and they all seem to work and shop in local convenience, hardware and auto parts stores here in my rural county. Yeah, I can see an odd mask problem here or there, but to even insinuate that this is why I don't see more masks being worn is pretty hard for me to swallow. Convenience and politics is the problem, not a few folks with phobias or rashes. Yeah, the gaming machines continue to be played, never stopped, but truthfully, I see no clusters around them, usually just one or two old men playing, unmasked. As for the threat of violence, again, where are you getting that? From what I've seen, it's the ones that don't want to wear masks that are threatening violence, not the other way around. Again, not saying it never happens just because I've not seen it, but I'd venture to say it is a rare and exceptional occasion. While compliance has improved at the Food Lion, with the employees now required to mask, most of the compliance seems to be driven by the weekenders and out of towners used to actually abiding by the law where they come from. Still lots of people without them. I see vendors wearing them in the FL but the same folks not wearing them when they stock the smaller stores, I mean why bother when nobody else but me is wearing them? Again, I say fine 'em and shut 'em down and it won't take but a few before the rest would fall into line.

Reel men fish on Wednesdays

CDC seroprevalence data

This is from the CDC. They did a seroprevalence study with data from Utah, Missouri, NY, and Florida. Wow. Cases caught with virus testing are just the tip of the iceberg. This will definitely affect COVID IFR.

Leonard. Duh.

Harvard just announced all classes in the 2020-2021 Academic year will be Online only.

so far they are still expecting 40% of undergrads to be back on campus, but without in person classes, that doesn't really seem reasonable.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Why do you feel that's unreasonable?

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Unreasonable as in I can see a lot of undergrads (especially freshmen and sophomores) just taking classes from their homes rather than deal with the headaches of moving into a dorm or apartment where its likely the university is going to place some heavy restrictions on what the students can and cannot do for this academic year. As for juniors and seniors, I imagine most would be in off campus housing, so I don't think they would count.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

What I figured, but just checking.
I wonder if they call upper classman that live in apartments "off" campus, or just kinda grabbed 40% and said "on" as an overall catch-all. Honestly, at a school like that the group discussion and studying is just as big a deal as in-person classes. So, I wouldn't be shocked if they sorta podded up with a few other kids and studied together and basically lived as a group in their own cocoon. Some schools, sit at home, but Harvard...yeah, that think tank is on another level and you're not gonna get the effect sitting in your 3rd grade bedroom, imho.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

For many college age people, that is their home.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

imagine paying $50K a year for Coursera

Not the bagman VT deserves, but the bagman VT needs right now.

The value in Harvard isn't the education; it's the professional network. It can be well worth the $50k/year (or six figure price tag on certain grad programs).

Twitter me

Their course load is also fairly ridiculous.

I had a friend who went to Princeton out of high school and by her Junior year she was having to write weekly multi-page essays and a 180 page thesis... for her undergrad degree.

Must have paid off, because the last I saw, she's a senior exec at one of the big hedge funds up in NY

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

I think the undergrad thesis is pretty unique to Princeton (just from what I've heard, I haven't researched nor am I super connected with Ivy league undergrads). And I'm not saying that Harvard is easy, but there's so many banks, p/e firms, etc who only recruit from a handful of schools. You can take every HBS Coursera course out there, but it's not landing you an interview unless you actually went to Harvard.

Twitter me

I see the NFL happening in some way this fall...$$$$$$$... College football?? No chance in hell - none.

Rutgers announced they will be doing Online Only classes in the fall semester

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

I would have to think that this means they are canceling fall sports.

I can't really see a scenario at this point where we have a college football season, at least in the fall.

It depends... If universities are allowing students to live on campus, then athletes COULD be able to live there also to train and compete.

However, if a university opts to ban students from campus... then yeah, it's a dead duck, unfortunately. I'm still hoping for sports and on-campus attendance. Schools are being hit hard in the wallet with lost revenue from out of state tuition and 2020 sports and cost increases for the mandatory testing and other COVID diversionary requirements. The ripple effect for no sports this fall and winter will resonate throughout 2021 and probably into 2022.

Does anyone know where there is reporting of any of the college athletes that were reported to test positive after returning to campus had any complications or were hospitalized?

Leonard. Duh.

There is a HUGE social distancing difference between living on campus in a dorm and running into each other on a football field for nearly 3 hours...why is this so difficult to understand? How many of them need to be hospitalized before you have an issue with it? Wait, don't answer...I have a feeling since you're not concern about the overall total in the US now and it's 6 figures.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

What is wrong with this comment from Leonard?

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

I have a feeling that you're not so much not reading my comments, but rather projecting some weird context onto them that isn't even close to what I was saying or asking.

However, I don't mind engaging you on your social distancing point. If you are saying that two or more students co-habitating in the same dwelling (small dwelling at that if in a dorm room) 24/7 for a semester is a much greater social distance than football practice where monitoring and distancing will be taken in as reasonable as possible consideration this season, then yes... I would have difficulty understanding you.

Leonard. Duh.

You can do one person per room.
You said compete. You cannot have contactless football. If they are just lifting weights, they are no different than any other person (student or not, on campus or not) at that point. But competition...well, that isn't social distancing. (That's not some weird projection...just responding to your words.)

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

I still believe that a dorm full of single room residents is going to cuddle up a lot more than supervised athletes on a practice field.

Anyway, you missed COULD compete in my first comment. I was only saying that if general population students were allowed to live on campus, there wouldn't be as much blow back for sports... than if you allowed sports but didn't allow on-campus living. That statement has nothing to do with my concern or lack thereof about COVID.

I asked about hospitalizations because I'm just curious if they're being reported for athletes. That's all. Just wanted to know.

Leonard. Duh.

I think distancing with college students in general is going to be impossible. Even if they shut down the bars its not like kids aren't going to have parties where 40 or more students are packed into an apartment. I just don't see how they are going to have students on campus this fall without there being an explosion of cases in Blacksburg and the NRV in general. Its just really hard for me to see any college having students on campus this fall.

That being the case, if there are no students on campus then how can they justify having football or any fall sports for that matter. Talk about saying the quiet part out loud if they do (with respect being that money is the driving factor).

I think it is one thing to have pro sports where you might be able to keep the players in a bubble with controlled testing, but that will be impossible with college kids. I guess I am just preparing myself for no CFB in the fall. The odds are one of these kids somewhere in the country is going to have adverse effects and die, or perhaps a relative. I think 2020 season is likely to get scrubbed and then hopefully a vaccine or effective drugs are developed and we start over in 2021.

I just don't see the season happening at this point. And if it does, it'll be a very much reduced slate, maybe reducing it to just the ACC slate and even then, possibly eliminating cross divisional games to reduce the amount of cross contamination.

Figure out your divisional winners, have a conference championship game, and have that be it. Would not shock me if all OOC games are canceled, across the board. The Penn St series may never happen for us, if I'm being honest.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Here is another aspect that could get interesting, is at what level is the decision made to cancel? Is it the conference? If so who blinks first. Lets say that the ACC decides to cancel fall sports, and the SEC say F that we are going to go ahead and have football. What happens then? Talk about a massive amount of players hitting the portal all at once.

Yea, I agree with this - no one wants to be the school that gives in first. I think we're going to try to have two weeks of College Football - the first week 75-90% of teams will play, the second 40-50% will attempt to continue, and by week 3 it's going to be such a shit show that everyone will throw up their hands and call it wash.

Twitter me

Stickied (always on top) thread on r/cfb. Nobody's specifically tracking "hospitalizations".

Link

This is pretty interesting in and of itself though. Thanks.

Leonard. Duh.

WV, of all places, is now required citizens to wear masks in public and private buildings. I am fascinated to see how the public responds to this.

Marshall University graduate.
Virginia Tech fanatic.
Formerly known as JWillHokieAlum.

Gov Abbot issued that order for all of Texas on Friday. So far so good, but of course there are several people who refuse. I don't get why people do that and then throw a tantrum at the store when they are told to leave. I wonder if they are not paying attention that all kinds of people are filming them and they are about to go viral on the internet.

Edit: They even blasted out a message on the emergency broadcast system. It hit everyone's phones and their TV's just like a tornado warning. They are not messing around.

Because they saw some post on the internet about HIPAA and the ADA. And if it's on the internet it has to be correct... major /s

I'm not necessarily on board with full time masking, but I do have an issue with people spreading total bullshit to support their case. This ADA thing that's getting shared around is the equivalent of borrowing your grandmother's handicap parking placard so you can park closer to the store.

It's wear a mask or have to stay home because everyone will close again. There are peer-reviewed academic journals that support the notion that masks are effective. There aren't peer-reviewed academic journals that wearing a mask is a slippery slope to us getting chips implanted. It's so easy and not that much of an inconvenience. I wish others saw it that way.

Marshall University graduate.
Virginia Tech fanatic.
Formerly known as JWillHokieAlum.

There aren't peer-reviewed academic journals that wearing a mask is a slippery slope to us getting chips implanted.

That's because the scientist and academics are in on the conspiracy.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

Someone smart should write a book about Epistemology in the Age of Covid. It'd be fascinating.

Not the bagman VT deserves, but the bagman VT needs right now.

I nominate Leonard!

There's a treadmill somewhere... That needs running on.

Leonard. Duh.

The disqualifier here for me would be:

Someone smart

Not the bagman VT deserves, but the bagman VT needs right now.

Technology and increasing levels of education have exposed people to more information than ever before. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a surge in narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled informed debates on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a quick trip through WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an equal intellectual footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most ridiculous, demand to be taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is dismissed as undemocratic elitism.

This thought process could be applied to so many things today. Information has never been more readily available. But I wonder if we aren't dumber than ever.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

A mile wide but an inch deep

this really is a damning indictment of Mr. Nichols' work, thank you

Not the bagman VT deserves, but the bagman VT needs right now.

I don't know Nichols or his work. Judging by the reviews it seems the book provides plenty of examples of this kind of psuedo-intellectualism but offers little analysis of why it exists or what to do about it.

Still this kind of toxic noise pollution is an obvious issue. It corrupts honest discourse and makes good faith debate near impossible. It also encourages folks to view their fellow citizens with undue suspicion or even as "the enemy." It also clears the way for more nefarious methods of political manipulation like race baiting.

You really have to scrutinize the motives and incentives of those whom you suspect engage in it. Edit: which is why it works so well to divide people.

Own this book and very much enjoyed it, recommended reading imo, has a very interesting diversion into increasing college tuition, how schools have started catering more towards the "experience" of college and less the academics, some is also very applicable to college football with some of the insane resources that get put into "facilities"

VT '17

Also from editorial section of WSJ. I find lately from them is an interesting piece thatacts as an aggregator to point at good sources on different topics.

This one discusses various groups doing studies that show different strains are prevalent in different places around the world at different times.
Some people get T Cell "immunity" without it showing in blood serum.

Going back and testing blood from patients show exposure to SARS-19 prior to previous understanding that the virus existed.

Antibody tests could significantly underestimate the number of novel coronavirus infections

This is going to be great for the ACC.

Definitely an exciting possibility. In theory, we should eventually start to see a decline in positive tests as we approach herd immunity. I'm curious how long it will take, if true, to get to that point.

Twitter me

This is the governor of California, increasing lockdown measures....

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

I read the news article with the latest Virginia update and I noticed that the Dept of Health is now reporting every individual test instead of just person. So if someone gets tested 3 times and they all come back positive, it counts as 3 positive tests. I don't know how long that's been going on as it looked like it was in the boiler plate part of the article.

Would that have any significant impact on the numbers?

This what happens when datasets start to get complicated. How do you report a person who has 3 tests and two are negative? Which two, first and last? What should that person's status be? Should any positive make the person a positive result? What about the inverse? Are we measuring tests or people?

The best you can do is be clear in your measurement criteria so the data can be properly understood. That way, when someone uses your data and only says the part that supports their viewpoint, you can bitch about it while drinking. At least that is what I do every time my boss uses the information I compile out of context.

You bring up good points. I think you track (1) the number of positive tests, and (2) the number of unique people. I don't think you have to track each person to get the good data.

Twitter me

That would take leadership from the federal level, to give guidance to states on what data to maintain and have available to pull from. #ifonly

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Lots of outlets reporting this update from Spain's antibody study, here's the link with article quoted below.

A nationwide antibody study in Spain has found that only 5.2 per cent of the country's population has been exposed to coronavirus, suggesting that herd immunity could be unachievable.

The findings marked the conclusion of a three-month study into the prevalence of the virus, which involved testing almost 70,000 people across Spain three times in as many months.

The results confirmed initial reports in May that a low percentage of people in Spain had developed antibodies after being infected with Covid-19.

In an article published in the health journal the Lancet on Monday, the scientists behind the study said: "Despite the high impact of COVID-19 in Spain, prevalence estimates remain low and are clearly insufficient to provide herd immunity."

"This cannot be achieved without accepting the collateral damage of many deaths in the susceptible population and overburdening of health systems. In this situation, social distance measures and efforts to identify and isolate new cases and their contacts are imperative for future epidemic control," they added.

The study also discovered that 14 per cent of people who tested positive for antibodies in the first test produced a negative result in the final test, which implies that immunity to Covid-19 can be short-lived. This phenomenon was most common among those who never displayed symptoms.

As a result, Dr Raquel Yotti, director of the Carlos III Health Institute which co-led the study, said: "Immunity can be incomplete, it can be transitory, it can last for just a short time and then disappear."

After appealing to Spaniards to remain careful, she added: "We can't relax, we must keep protecting ourselves and protecting others."

Spain, which has been one of the European countries worst affected by the pandemic, has recorded 28,385 deaths from coronavirus so far. It is still struggling with regions outbreaks, including one that led to the lockdown of more than 200,000 people in Lleida province in the northeast of the country last week.

The Spanish study report came a month after the results of an antibody study in Switzerland involving 2,766 participants were published in the Lancet. It suggested that a low percentage of the population in Geneva tested positive for antibodies, despite the city being a hotspot for the disease.

It's worth noting that the same study also indicated 57% seroprevalence in the Lombardy region in Italy. That would definitely indicate herd immunity.

Leonard. Duh.

The Lombardy region was also the hardest hit and most devastated area of Italy. It also only comprises 9,206 sq mi, it doesn't suggest that the country itself is anywhere close to herd immunity.

My understanding of how the immune system works is antibodies (specialized proteins from B cells) are present when you are actively fighting off an infection. The memory B & T cells are what protect you from an infection in the long term.

Antibodies being present means that you are fighting off an infection, or recently (within a few weeks) fought one off. This has little to no relationship to how effective the memory B & T cells are at fighting off a new infection in the future.

If my understanding is correct, why is there so much focus on antibodies? It only informs us about short term immunity within the tested population.

Sometimes antibodies can represent immunity (sometimes they don't, I believe this is the case with HIV(?)), sometimes it's B/T cell memory. The main point is that we still don't know if non-vaccine assisted herd immunity is possible, which mechanism is used for such immunity (if possible), and how long the immunity lasts (can vary enormously). Bottom line, we need to learn more about this.

I'm not an expert in this area by any means, this is simply an attempt to regurgitate what I have read from people here that have shared expertise among other sources I've read since the pandemic started.

France says "Yes." Kids need to be back in school.

Robert Cohen, pediatrician and infectious disease specialist at the CrΓ©teil hospital (Val-de-Marne) references study after study that indicates MOSTLY (of course there is no such thing as 0% chance) children are poor carriers of COVID, and poor transmitters. Most children cases are transmitted from adults to children. That would infer that kids might actually be safer while they are at school than at home with adults.

Leonard. Duh.

That would infer that kids might actually be safer while they are at school than at home with adults.

That would be an incorrect inference unless they would be encountering additional adults in the home during school hours that whey would not be encountering outside of school hours. They will still be spending a large amount of time at home with the same adults whether they are in school or not unless we are proposing boarding school.

I could go with just as safe, but if kids are at home, there is no control on how they are spending their time. Of course most parents are going to at least attempt to assemble some sort of structure to their kids' day at home, but if they are in school, they're definitely not going to be at the park, at the grocery store, at work with dad, etc. during school hours.

Leonard. Duh.

I think one could make a compelling argument that it's important to get kids back to schools for educational reasons, social reasons, and societal reasons, then point out that there is evidence suggesting that children are less likely to spread the virus.

That said, I think it's a pretty unconvincing argument to suggest that kids are less 'at risk' when in school than at home.

Twitter me

Yeah, my issue was the "safer" bit. I think there will be an ongoing discussion as to when schools will go back to in person and under what circumstances and what are the costs associated with going back or not. There will be costs either way, no matter when we change. It is a matter of what we are willing to "pay" in terms of risk, money, time, etc..

But those arguments need to be supported. Safer was just not supported by the initial statement.

What bothers me is that the "getting kids back in school" conversations tend to ignore the risks to the adults that have to work in those schools. Kids may be poor carriers, but a classroom full of 20-30 poor carriers is a lot riskier than being around just one kid.

The poor soul that works as a cashier in a lunch line better be wearing a hazmat suit.

"Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill our heart with tolerance."
-Stan Lee

"Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
-Ron Swanson

"11-0, bro"
-Hunter Carpenter (probably)

Actually, the cashier in a lunch line is fine (assuming she's only interacting with students). Teachers congregating together are in far more danger. From the NYT Daily:

There's growing evidence that kids are not big transmitters of the virus to adults. Denmark opened its schools in April. Did not see a big spike up in cases. Finland opened its schools in May. Did not see a big spike up in cases. Even from the beginning in China, the Chinese said, every time they looked at clusters in families, almost never did they see a case where the child, particularly the youngest child, was the one who introduced the virus into the family. Usually it was parent infecting the kids, not the other way around.

We know that kids are big transmitters of flu viruses. And they do it because they cough and sneeze like crazy. But if the biggest symptom that they're getting is inflammation, rather than coughing and sneezing, β€” and that's the case; kids tend to get more sort of cranky, inflammatory, unpleasant manifestations of the disease, rather than something that looks like a cold. Then it would make sense that that might be a reason why they're not big transmitters.

But schools also bring together a lot of adults. Teachers, staff, parents picking up the kids, things like that. So schools are not going to be completely safe under any circumstances.

Twitter me

my issue with this is that kids may be "low transmitters" of this specific virus, but they've also been separated (largely) from other kids for months. maybe they don't cough as much as they do with flu and that makes them less likely to transmit, but i'd bet we'd see an increase in juvenile cases if everyone is just supposed to go back to school

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Yea, no one is saying that there is no risk for children, just that (1) it's far lower than in adults, and (2) there are a myriad of benefits to getting kids back into school. At the end of the day, it's a complex risk/reward calculation (like everything these days).

Twitter me

Except there is data from other countries that have opened schools (see up thread) that suggests that's not true.

There's also the fact/observation that we in the US can't behave ourselves and follow safety guidance or they blatantly defy it...

Leonard. Duh.

What are these numbers and what/who is the source? Come on man, you can do better than just posting screenshots; take the time to put together a coherent post and site your sources.

Twitter me

The COVID vs flu chart is from the CDC. The school re-opening chart is from the Swiss COVID task force. The infected contact chart is from a French pediatric study that was included in a WSJ article behind a paywall. The article indicated the European countries that are 100% behind re-opening schools.

I was trying to refrain from posting comments as I have trouble not inciting indignation. My argument is that real data indicates that children can go to school, even with minimal distancing. Where is the opposing data? I don't mind a screenshot if someone has it.

Leonard. Duh.

The opposing data is US vs Other Countries. Now. We are not operating like they are. We haven't, we aren't, and for the next several months thru the end of the year, won't. Apples and oranges.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

As someone else has pointed out, lots of these countries have universal healthcare systems and much more robust social safety nets in place. Not to mention cultural differences and educational disparities vs the US.

Leonard. Duh.

Context is important.

I was just pointing out that your comment was wading into the murky waters of politics. While politics is raging during the pandemic, I'm using all of my skills and powers to resist going there.

Leonard. Duh.

I don't know what you're saying.

I'm just pointing out that medical data is indicating that children 0-17 are not very good carriers or spreaders of the virus, thus making it safe for primary school to commence as normal. Are you trying to say that European kids are biologically different, or that European policy makers don't like their kids as much as we like ours?

Leonard. Duh.

Biologically different? No. But the approach, the handling, the everything else is different. They are in a completely different environment. And for that reason, it's apples and oranges.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

So you're saying that if you are presented data from studies based on contact tracing, sero-prevalence, etc. that indicate children in Europe and Asia between the ages of 0 and 17 do not easily contract or transmit the disease, you don't believe that you can apply that to other parts of the world?

If that's so, then WHO, CDC, and AMA would like a word. I'll give you Red Delicious and Granny Smith, but not apples and oranges.

Leonard. Duh.

You don't want to see what I'm saying, so you won't.
With respect to the CG's, I'm stopping there.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

I do see what you're saying. I just don't agree with it. Tell me what aspect of caring for children in Europe is different than here, and then tell me how that difference would affect the contagion/transmission numbers of children at a significance of "apples and oranges"

Leonard. Duh.

Are adults having different results? Yes. So, why wouldn't children potentially have different results? If their adult rates were still climbing like ours, it would be a similar experiment.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

We're testing a lot more adults, and we have a lot more adults. Germany has around 40 million people. So does CA.

By the way, I'll give you your first point. Some European countries tend to their kids a lot different than us. Sweden never closed their schools, and they have the lowest pediatric COVID rate on our planet.

Leonard. Duh.

Germany has twice that many people ~83m.

This morning the former head of the CDC said that children are about 1/3 less likely to transmit the virus. That's a 67% chance of the older crowd that they will. And that's not near zero. He was talking about the US.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

It is a relative comparison to transmission rates. It does not matter if the environment or compliance is different; there is or isnt a difference among age groups.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

It does not matter if the environment or compliance is different

The environment doesn't matter? Do two tests. Close up the petri dish on one, leave the other one open. Compare the results. Are they the same test?

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

kids aren't the only people present in schools tho

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Lots of good reasons to get kids under 18 back in school. Also seems to be evidence that they are lower risk for developing serious symptoms but not sure about transmission /carrier implications. Could be a great opportunity to collect data by requiring regular nasal swabs.

The Nats just announced their home game schedule and I think it will be a missed opportunity if they don't push hard to nasal swab all attendees.

missed opportunity if they don't push hard to nasal swab all attendees.

Huh? You want crowds to go to baseball game, and in order to get in they have to get a nasal swab and wait for the results before entering? Or get the swab and go in anyway, and wait on the results...so they could be positive in a group setting?

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

I didn't say I wanted that. But if they are going ahead with it (which they are) why not take the opportunity? Results aren't immediate and wouldn't determine admission.

Personally I'm not super irked by the games as long as masks and distancing are enforced. There will be limited attendance to allow for distancing. There are obvious risks and other not so obvious issues but DC has done a pretty good job of flattening the curve and folks here seem to take it seriously.

There will not be fans at any MLB games this year. You can write that down.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Nasal swabbing everyone before admission seems like a really good way to spread the virus.

How so? Proximity? I think that could be managed by spacing. But I'm spitballing.

Leonard. Duh.