Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[Joe Hillshoist]

In the city where i live they followed the global script and immediately built a big emergency facility for all the covid patients that were sure to appear. Now like in a lot of places they're dismantling it again. It has never been used. Millions wasted! Meanwhile we're still in lockdown with bizarre rules on every aspect of everyday life. That is the surreal aspect to me. And i'm not saying it's a hoax, but look at for example Australia in lockdown after 98 deaths with covid, my own country in lockdown because of 5000 deaths with covid with an average age of 82 (higher than the general average age of death of 81) when no measures were taken or media-panic happened in 2018 when there were 8000 excess flu deaths, or take India where they are now predicting famines of biblical proportions due to the lockdown:

Cases overview
India
Confirmed
21.700
Recovered
4.325
Deaths
686 ( a small number still compared to the 450,000 TB and 10,000-odd malaria deaths recorded every year)

The current population of India is 1,377,418,724

Or take where it allegedly all started, China:
less than 5000 deaths with covid on 1,439,323,776 people and contrast that to 1,6 millions chinese dying every year prematurely because of air pollution

And take into account what government officials are telling you themselves:



and you can justifiably state that it might as well be a total hoax that is justifying this fascistic powergrab and incursion on freedom on a worldwide scale that is unprecedented in history.

We went into lockdown before the 98 deaths with the specific goal of keeping the number as low as possible.

As far as we're concerned it worked. We have 98 deaths, less than 1000 active cases and minimal community transmission. Compare the states in Australia to similar ones in the western world and you'll see very different figures for dead people. Most of them 10 to 50 times higher.

Other countries are reporting death rates per head of population much higher than ours.

The pubs are re opening in two weeks. At no point were we in "full lockdown" either I went out shopping whenever I felt like it, did all the other non social activity I do anyway and people were still working building sites, food processing centres and various other places than can't be worked from home.

The trouble with preventative measures is that people don't see them working because by definition they work if nothing bad happens.

[Joe Hillshoist]

.

Strangely for such general skeptics I see credulity here regarding spectacularized (second-hand) media accounts of all the varieties of death. The rule seems to be that all corporate media is lies, except for clickbait headlines that fit my idea of the moment. All analysis is disinfo, unless it fits what I already prefer.

Brain broken by social media syndrome.

People would be better off doing meth. It releases the same neurotransmitters and as a bone us you can fuck for hours.

[alloneword]

For those here who eschew masks because you are not convinced they are effective in reducing the transmission of COVID-19, I'm curious - what scientific "authority" or agency would you simply believe (accept, take at face value, etc) if they were to say that yes, indeed - proper masks are a demonstrably effective means to help reduce transmission of COVID-19 in a community.

Sorry LO, I'd missed this civil question and it certainly deserves a response.

I'm not sure that there is any 'scientific "authority" or agency' that I would 'simply believe' about anything, particularly anything covid-related, as there is too much biased and unreliable information being presented to take anything at 'face value'. I don't think that anyone ever should.

If evidence is presented that stands up to examination, doesn't engage in obfuscation, cites quality, reputable sources and has at least considered the possibility that it's wrong, I'm much more likely to consider it than if not.

And to clarify: I eschew masks because I do not consider that they are appropriate for me to wear, given my circumstances. If I were in close contact with or caring for an elderly/vulnerable person, that might be different. The general population wearing them outdoors or in their cars, I do not consider appropriate.

But again, I think this all comes down to your perception of the risk, which is always going to be a personal thing.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Via: Bloombergistan

How the coronavirus spreads in the real world.
By Faye Flam May 15, 2020

Each virus has its unique pattern of spread, and scientists are starting to get a handle on how the novel coronavirus behaves. This understanding is making it possible to rank the risks of different activities from high to low to trivial.

The most informative studies show how the disease is spreading in the real world — a big advance over the various simulations and models that, early on, showed only hypothetical scenarios.

The two drivers of the spread of the disease are close contact and crowding in closed spaces, said Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews in the U.K. It spread through homeless shelters and nursing and care homes, where people were crowded with many others. It spread through people’s households, and through meat packing plants.

Cevik has been collecting and reviewing papers from around the world on disease transmission. “There are some trends emerging,” she says. “Spending time dining together, being in public transport,” might risk spreading the disease, but “going to a market briefly, for five minutes or a transient encounter while you walk or run past someone, those are low risks.”

The studies come from China, Singapore, Taiwan, and to a lesser extent the U.S. They were all done through contact tracing, which may turn out to be humanity’s greatest strategy for fighting the Covid-19 pandemic. Contact tracing can stop chains of transmission, even after a disease is widespread, as physician and former World Bank president Jim Yong Kim explained in The New Yorker. Another major benefit is that it offers clues as to how the disease spreads. Each virus has its unique pattern.

The U.S. has done almost no contact tracing yet. A survey of people coming to hospitals in New York City in May revealed that most of them had been home, and were not working or taking public transport. But why isn’t everyone admitted to the hospital being asked about this? Why aren’t we finding out who they live with, or who visited them, and tracking down where they’ve been? The lost opportunities are staggering.

Cevik said people often ask her how the disease could be so transmissible if it takes closed environments or close contact to spread. The first part of the answer is that after much speculation of extreme transmissibility, the data show something intermediate, with each infected individual transmitting the virus to between two and three others on average. But the important point, which is often missed, is that this is just an average. In the real world, most people transmit the disease to nobody, or one person, and a minority infect many others in so-called super-spreading events. It's those we must learn how to avoid.

The data show that nine percent of infected people are responsible for 80% of the transmissions, she says. Why? For one thing, the disease is apparently very infectious but only for a short window, and perhaps only in some cases. Contact tracing studies show people are most infectious right around the onset of symptoms, as well as a couple of days before and after. If someone in that stage goes to a party, or church service, or to work in a meat packing plant or nursing home, many other people will probably get sick.

One study in China showed how the virus spread at a business meeting and a restaurant. A contact tracing effort in Singapore revealed big clusters of cases stemmed from a business meeting, a church, and a visit to a shop. Another study, one of the few from the U.S., showed how one infected person in Chicago spread the disease to multiple people at a funeral and later at a birthday party, and one of those infected at the party then spread the disease to others at a church service that lasted more than two hours. Other studies connected outbreaks to crowded offices.

People who eventually developed severe symptoms were more likely to transmit the disease to others than were those who had mild symptoms, Cevik says. While it’s clear the disease can be spread by people before they have symptoms, it’s still an open question how many people have no symptoms and whether they are driving much of the spread.

Much of the material in these studies comes as a surprise to people, says Erin Bromage, a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, who recently got 11 million views to a blog post he wrote on how the disease is transmitted. People think if you get exposed, you automatically get sick or become infectious, he explains. But even people exposed to sick family members in their homes don’t always get sick.

Sharing a home or office does make transmission more likely, since length of exposure matters as much as distance from other people. People passing by you in a supermarket are unlikely to infect you. Outdoor environments appear much safer as well. In one study, which followed hundreds of cases, all but one transmission occurred indoors.

“I’d like people to stop wasting mental energy on the wrong things,” Bromage says. “To stop worrying about outdoors and bike riders since it’s such a low risk.”

Bromage doesn’t think strict lockdowns have to remain until we get herd immunity or a vaccine. But he would like to see businesses use the data available to start up without fueling major outbreaks. He sees hope for restaurants and hair salons in the new normal, and is advising such businesses in his community on how to minimize exposure.

As Harvard population medicine professor Julia Marcus recalled in a recent piece in The Atlantic, 20th century doctors eventually relented on advice for unpaired people to remain celibate until there was a cure for AIDS. They started talking about safer sex. Now it’s time to do the same with life under the coronavirus.

I've been laughing about "much of the material in these studies comes as a surprise to people" since I read it this morning.

[stickdog99]

Japan suicides decline as Covid-19 lockdown causes shift in stress factors
April’s 20% drop compared with a year earlier may be the result of delays to start of school year, less commuting and more time with family

Thu 14 May 2020 00.30 EDTLast modified on Thu 14 May 2020 01.26 EDT

The suicide rate in Japan fell by 20% in April compared with the same time last year, the biggest drop in five years, despite fears the coronavirus pandemic would cause increased stress and many prevention helplines were either not operating or short-staffed.

People spending more time at home with their families, fewer people were commuting to work and delays to the start of the school year are seen as factors in the fall.

In April, 1,455 people took their lives in Japan, 359 fewer than in April 2019. Suicide has been on a downward trend in Japan since peaking at more than 34,000 cases annually in 2003. Last year saw just over 20,000, and the large drop last month came at a time when there were fears of a fresh spike.

New coronavirus infections reached their peak in mid-April in Japan at more than 500 a day, leading the government to declare a state of emergency on 16 April, though the restrictions were less strict than those of other countries.

The stay-at-home measures affected suicide prevention organisations, with about 40% of them either shut down or working reduced hours, leading to worries about vulnerable people.

Amid the decline in suicide of recent years, there has been an increase among children, with bullying and other problems at school a frequently cited cause. The start of the academic year, in April in Japan, is a particularly stressful time for some, but its postponement due to the pandemic may have saved lives, at least temporarily.

“School is a pressure for some young people, but this April there is no such pressure,” said Yukio Saito, a former head of telephone counselling service the Japanese Federation of Inochi-no-Denwa. “At home with their families, they feel safe.”

As for adults, at times of national crisis and disasters, “traditionally, people don’t think about suicide”, said Saito, pointing to a drop in cases in 2011, the year of the giant earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima.

A large drop in the number of people commuting to offices, where they often work long hours, is also being seen as another contributing factor in the lower suicide rate.

However, economic and work pressures are factors. The year after the 1997 Asian financial crisis saw a record rise of nearly 35%. A prolonged economic downturn caused by the pandemic could lead to a rebound in cases, said Saito, who also served as chair of the Japanese Association for Suicide Prevention.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... ss-factors

Let's look on the bright side. It's harder to disgrace your family when your society tells you that your doing nothing is heroic.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Some sound commentary in layman's terms (can't locate an online version at the moment), with the qualifier that the author is also selling his services, and is NOT a proper 'MD'.

[stickdog99]

.

Some sound commentary in layman's terms (can't locate an online version at the moment), with the qualifier that the author is also selling his services, and is NOT a proper 'MD'.

Is the fact that this guy is a chiropractor supposed to make his basic advice about health less authoritative?

I teach "proper" MDs. And what's always been weird to me about "proper" US medical schools is how little they emphasize trying to get patients to do basic things to keep themselves healthy, such as limiting their intake of refined sugar, getting a little sunlight, sleeping at least 6 hours every night, having a regular exercise routine, and staying hydrated with water that is at least filtered. Anybody who has ever eaten hospital food knows exactly how important diet is to most MDs. But they'll definitely check to make sure you're fully vaccinated.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Indeed. I posted the same article elsewhere (in a venue markedly less discerning than RI) and the majority of the responses consisted, essentially, of attacking the messenger ("he's not a doctor", etc) rather than the message. I'd be disappointed, except it's such a tragically predictable response. Lots of sheep out there.

Also: someone emailed me this clip earlier. I disagree with Maher far more often than not, but in this clip he's spot-on (he echoes much of the content from the news clipping I shared above):

[alloneword]

A couple of (not too long) essays, apparently from the same anonymous social scientist, that each make good points.

The first on COVID-19 and the infantilisation of dissent.

As a matter of fact, during his statement Johnson claimed already to know how we felt about it. “I ask you,” he said at one point, vamping the camera with the same type of nauseatingly faux sincerity that Tony Blair once made his calling card, “to contain your impatience.” Impatience. Did you know you were impatient? Personally, I thought I was “intensely sceptical of the government’s strategy” or “thinking about different ways to manage a pandemic”, or maybe even, in moments of self-aggrandisement, “intellectually dissenting”. Apparently not, however. Those of us who have done our best to research, read widely and think carefully about how it might be possible to, you know, defeat COVID-19 without ending up jobless, business-less and in rent or mortgage arrears, are apparently “impatient”.

The second on The Hyper-Rationality of Crowds: COVID-19 and the Cult of Anxiety

It seems to me that if we’re trying to understand public responses to the coronavirus then any talk of either individual, clinical madness or collective, social-psychological madness misses the mark. This lockdown debacle is driven by something a lot closer to textbook clinical anxiety. Le Bon’s madding crowds were driven by irrationality and active aggression, but what we’ve seen during this lockdown are crowds driven by anxiety in a very literal, almost clinical sense: that is, a form of hyper-rationality that causes total passivity. Anxious people aren’t irrational like our mad crowds: they’re hyper-rational.

Both are worth reading in full, IMO.

[liminalOyster]

I'm not sure that there is any 'scientific "authority" or agency' that I would 'simply believe' about anything, particularly anything covid-related, as there is too much biased and unreliable information being presented to take anything at 'face value'. I don't think that anyone ever should

Well no doubt, in general. Allopathic medicine is a hell of a joke. But I find it interestingt that, for me. the *greater* input of epidemiogists and assortd others who really do think about the socio-political, gives me a couple voices here and there who I think are above the usual cut.

If evidence is presented that stands up to examination, doesn't engage in obfuscation, cites quality, reputable sources and has at least considered the possibility that it's wrong, I'm much more likely to consider it than if not..

With total respect (and affection), this is what sort of loses me. I've read so much the past few months that it'd be tough to point to which particular pieces did this but I feel the evidence that properly worn N95/KN5 masks offer a signifcant and effective barrier against those droplets on which COVID-19 travels is very very well established. I think makeshift cloth masks are pretty dicey given the way the virus follows airstreams, but I don't know, maybe they are better than nothing.

And to clarify: I eschew masks because I do not consider that they are appropriate for me to wear, given my circumstances. If I were in close contact with or caring for an elderly/vulnerable person, that might be different. The general population wearing them outdoors or in their cars, I do not consider appropriate.

I've neer seen any call to wear them in cars. Though, ironically, I often tend to because I drive about a mile home to work and it's just simpler to take off only once. As for the outdoors, it seems to me the big risk is the odd, unexpected stumbling on someone but I can definitely see/respoect not doign so, as long as distancing is possible.

And again, I'm very passionate about the law never mandating my personal risk decisons. But in this case, there is a kind of basic ocmplication by the fact that our bodies may be acting against our will.

[Joe Hillshoist]

.

Some sound commentary in layman's terms (can't locate an online version at the moment), with the qualifier that the author is also selling his services, and is NOT a proper 'MD'.

Is the fact that this guy is a chiropractor supposed to make his basic advice about health less authoritative?

I teach "proper" MDs. And what's always been weird to me about "proper" US medical schools is how little they emphasize trying to get patients to do basic things to keep themselves healthy, such as limiting their intake of refined sugar, getting a little sunlight, sleeping at least 6 hours every night, having a regular exercise routine, and staying hydrated with water that is at least filtered. Anybody who has ever eaten hospital food knows exactly how important diet is to most MDs. But they'll definitely check to make sure you're fully vaccinated.

Public education programs in Australia make all that bolded stuff common knowledge. You don't have to agree or follow it. It's a standard part of public health promotions. Doesn't that happen in the US?

Drs here have to reflect those public health attitudes whatever their corporate proclivities or general shittiness, they can get into trouble if they're shown not to, especially if it makes people sick. It's not rigorously enforced necessarily. Unless something happens or enough people make enough noise.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

.
And what's always been weird to me about "proper" US medical schools is how little they emphasize trying to get patients to do basic things to keep themselves healthy, such as limiting their intake of refined sugar, getting a little sunlight, sleeping at least 6 hours every night, having a regular exercise routine, and staying hydrated with water that is at least filtered. Anybody who has ever eaten hospital food knows exactly how important diet is to most MDs. But they'll definitely check to make sure you're fully vaccinated.

Public education programs in Australia make all that bolded stuff common knowledge. You don't have to agree or follow it. It's a standard part of public health promotions. Doesn't that happen in the US?

Drs here have to reflect those public health attitudes whatever their corporate proclivities or general shittiness, they can get into trouble if they're shown not to, especially if it makes people sick. It's not rigorously enforced necessarily. Unless something happens or enough people make enough noise.

It is not only not rigorously enforced in the US, it is given the standard, every few election cycles or so, lip-service only when stumping on healthcare reform, e.g. "We need to also consider preventative medicine." And to be honest, how the f does one check to make sure doctors are telling their patients to f-ing eat right and maybe consider exercise? What is being battled here is good ole fashion American GDP: bombs and obesity. The public expenditure is part of the record, untouchable never questioned as far as financing is concerned. For the private part one need only what the adverts during a football game to see what's being pushed: obesity and every pill imaginable. So, no, that does not happen in the US and I challenge anyone to even suggest remotely otherwise.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Via: Bloombergistan

How the coronavirus spreads in the real world.
By Faye Flam May 15, 2020

Each virus has its unique pattern of spread, and scientists are starting to get a handle on how the novel coronavirus behaves. This understanding is making it possible to rank the risks of different activities from high to low to trivial.

The most informative studies show how the disease is spreading in the real world — a big advance over the various simulations and models that, early on, showed only hypothetical scenarios.

The two drivers of the spread of the disease are close contact and crowding in closed spaces, said Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews in the U.K. It spread through homeless shelters and nursing and care homes, where people were crowded with many others. It spread through people’s households, and through meat packing plants.

Cevik has been collecting and reviewing papers from around the world on disease transmission. “There are some trends emerging,” she says. “Spending time dining together, being in public transport,” might risk spreading the disease, but “going to a market briefly, for five minutes or a transient encounter while you walk or run past someone, those are low risks.”

The studies come from China, Singapore, Taiwan, and to a lesser extent the U.S. They were all done through contact tracing, which may turn out to be humanity’s greatest strategy for fighting the Covid-19 pandemic. Contact tracing can stop chains of transmission, even after a disease is widespread, as physician and former World Bank president Jim Yong Kim explained in The New Yorker. Another major benefit is that it offers clues as to how the disease spreads. Each virus has its unique pattern.

The U.S. has done almost no contact tracing yet. A survey of people coming to hospitals in New York City in May revealed that most of them had been home, and were not working or taking public transport. But why isn’t everyone admitted to the hospital being asked about this? Why aren’t we finding out who they live with, or who visited them, and tracking down where they’ve been? The lost opportunities are staggering.

Cevik said people often ask her how the disease could be so transmissible if it takes closed environments or close contact to spread. The first part of the answer is that after much speculation of extreme transmissibility, the data show something intermediate, with each infected individual transmitting the virus to between two and three others on average. But the important point, which is often missed, is that this is just an average. In the real world, most people transmit the disease to nobody, or one person, and a minority infect many others in so-called super-spreading events. It's those we must learn how to avoid.

The data show that nine percent of infected people are responsible for 80% of the transmissions, she says. Why? For one thing, the disease is apparently very infectious but only for a short window, and perhaps only in some cases. Contact tracing studies show people are most infectious right around the onset of symptoms, as well as a couple of days before and after. If someone in that stage goes to a party, or church service, or to work in a meat packing plant or nursing home, many other people will probably get sick.

One study in China showed how the virus spread at a business meeting and a restaurant. A contact tracing effort in Singapore revealed big clusters of cases stemmed from a business meeting, a church, and a visit to a shop. Another study, one of the few from the U.S., showed how one infected person in Chicago spread the disease to multiple people at a funeral and later at a birthday party, and one of those infected at the party then spread the disease to others at a church service that lasted more than two hours. Other studies connected outbreaks to crowded offices.

People who eventually developed severe symptoms were more likely to transmit the disease to others than were those who had mild symptoms, Cevik says. While it’s clear the disease can be spread by people before they have symptoms, it’s still an open question how many people have no symptoms and whether they are driving much of the spread.

Much of the material in these studies comes as a surprise to people, says Erin Bromage, a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, who recently got 11 million views to a blog post he wrote on how the disease is transmitted. People think if you get exposed, you automatically get sick or become infectious, he explains. But even people exposed to sick family members in their homes don’t always get sick.

Sharing a home or office does make transmission more likely, since length of exposure matters as much as distance from other people. People passing by you in a supermarket are unlikely to infect you. Outdoor environments appear much safer as well. In one study, which followed hundreds of cases, all but one transmission occurred indoors.

“I’d like people to stop wasting mental energy on the wrong things,” Bromage says. “To stop worrying about outdoors and bike riders since it’s such a low risk.”

Bromage doesn’t think strict lockdowns have to remain until we get herd immunity or a vaccine. But he would like to see businesses use the data available to start up without fueling major outbreaks. He sees hope for restaurants and hair salons in the new normal, and is advising such businesses in his community on how to minimize exposure.

As Harvard population medicine professor Julia Marcus recalled in a recent piece in The Atlantic, 20th century doctors eventually relented on advice for unpaired people to remain celibate until there was a cure for AIDS. They started talking about safer sex. Now it’s time to do the same with life under the coronavirus.

I've been laughing about "much of the material in these studies comes as a surprise to people" since I read it this morning.

This is that Bromage guys blog. It's not exactly that he doesn't think lockdowns have to remain either. My reading of it was he's uncomfortable with it (the lockdown) and was expecting at least another 70k deaths from this (when it was written) and without lockdown "all bets are off".


https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-ri ... avoid-them

It's worth reading. If someone else wants to post it that'd be good. I'm just using a shitty tablet right now. It's a pita to do stuff like that. It took ages just to post an article in the India thread.

In fact it's very worth reading, to reiterate, just in terms of the physical circumstances of spread, and has practical advice based on it.

It's all worked out from contact tracing of actual cases, not hypothetical modelling and what have you. Full of references and data that I only glanced at but assume is on the level. Basically indoor environments and time are what spread the virus but in those circumstances the spread rate can be high. Don't take my word for it tho. Read the post. It'll help give you a picture of how to approach an environment from a potential risk pov. Most of it is common sense but at the same time examples always help with this sort of thing.

[JackRiddler]

And to be honest, how the f does one check to make sure doctors are telling their patients to f-ing eat right and maybe consider exercise? What is being battled here is good ole fashion American GDP: bombs and obesity. The public expenditure is part of the record, untouchable never questioned as far as financing is concerned. For the private part one need only what the adverts during a football game to see what's being pushed: obesity and every pill imaginable. So, no, that does not happen in the US and I challenge anyone to even suggest remotely otherwise.

Hard to argue!

Nope, healthy living has been branded and pushed strictly as a secondary market for those who can afford the extra cost put on it (which actually means that less of the total cost is externalized, not that it's truly less costly overall). And half of those seem to prefer its value as virtue signal, rather than follow it all that carefully. Anyway, the physical fitness part may have just gone out the window.

.

[dada]

Take your vitamins and say your prayers like a good hulkamaniac. That's a real American health regimen.

He sees hope for restaurants and hair salons in the new normal

Have you noticed how often hair salons are mentioned? I have. Says so much about the culture. About everything, really.

You want to destabilize society, forget the electrical grid, target the hair salons. Agents of kaos take note.