Jump to content

Menu

wuhan - coronavirus


gardenmom5

Recommended Posts

I see most of what is going on at a federal level as “noise”. It hasn’t really impacted what is going on in my state in any meaningful way. 
 

I see the advances in treatments (which are being worked out by doctors on the ground around the world) promising. One of the scariest things initially was the lack of informed treatment options for moderate to severe cases. And despite the initial focus on ventilators, that is treatment with a very poor outcome. (Btw- now that they are trying other therapies with better success, I hope they take that into consideration and don’t keep cranking out ventilators with no thought on whether they are still needed). 
 

I wish that we had better reporting on WHY there aren’t more tests. The federal government has closed testing sites here so we shouldn’t rely in them. I don’t care who sets up testing but we need it. And antibody testing if they can find a reliable way to do it. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Our insurer is nationwide although we live in VA and we are also getting a 20% discount/refund on our auto insurance.

Wonder if they're only giving the discount to people rated 'safe drivers'... Apparently this trend is being led by idiots drag racing around at 100+mph. I'm kind of assuming those idiots already have at least one speeding ticket dinging their records. .. sane drivers, I think, are still being sane.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have we seen any evidence about how we are going to climb out of the PPE shortage or testing swab and reagent shortage?

I appreciate the discussions about reopening the economy because I think it refocuses back on the key problems that led to the lockdown in the first place.

I think we are in a longer term problem but we aren’t having needed discussions about handling the intermediate issues. How do we reopen healthcare so people can get chemo, surgeries, needed dental and eye care, etc. while so many things realistically can’t reopen yet? I think those are the discussions I wish we were having as a nation.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paige said:

I doubt that's true here. I doubt anyone in the US who is pushing the blame China narrative is paying attention to what's going on in the Chinese media. You're giving the talking heads and talking points makers too much credit. If anything, I think it's more likely the Chinese are watching us and pushing back. 

I think China absolutely lied, is still lying, and is also making and has made mistakes with info that led to misleading info coming out that was unintentional. But that has nothing to do with the US response! We're supposed to have spies and intel people who are working for us and can bypass the Chinese propoganda! And we did. And they mostly sent the correct messages. And once the disease hit our shores, what happened next had absolutely nothing to do with Chinese failings and misinformation. I think we are focusing on blaming China because it's easier than admitting our response failed on multiple levels. I hope that's not too political- I think some of it is because of the current admin's mistakes, but some of it is not and reflects policy failures over decades. 

Back to China- I'm surprised China hasn't targeted a scapegoat yet who would come out, take all the blame, and quit their job, or be sent off to some nasty Chinese prison. Or maybe they've decided to double down on the lie that it came from the US gvmt and we're the scapegoat? 


They have...African immigrants. Mostly students.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matryoshka said:

Wonder if they're only giving the discount to people rated 'safe drivers'... Apparently this trend is being led by idiots drag racing around at 100+mph. I'm kind of assuming those idiots already have at least one speeding ticket dinging their records. .. sane drivers, I think, are still being sane.. 


Maybe, I dunno. They just said it would be a blanket 20% cut due to people driving less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TracyP said:

Hmm, not what I've heard in MN... I think you meant speed related traffic deaths - I believe they went from 3 in March '19 to 7 in March '20. That would be doubled. Fatal crashes overall have stayed about flat. There were 17 fatal crashes in March of this year, down just a bit from 21 last March.

The spot didn't specify, but that does sound accurate.  It was focusing on these idiots driving around at 130-150 mph.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:


Our insurer is nationwide although we live in VA and we are also getting a 20% discount/refund on our auto insurance.

 

19 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

Welp, apparently it's not auto deaths leading the decline... just watching a spot on CBS This Morning. .. rather than going down, auto deaths are actually spiking now in spite of lower traffic, due to increased speeding. Traffic speeds are up 30% in CA; in Minnesota,  traffic deaths have doubled

The auto insurance discount is due to people driving less due to shelter in place orders. Think it’s more or less nationwide.

California has sideshows where you have crowds. People are speeding because of less commuter traffic on freeways.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone post this already? (Pre-print study) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1

These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I'd guess there are shortages of equipment? Swabs, reagents, etc. 

There are shortages of supply, but we also still have capacity problems.  A couple of our local hospitals have set up their own labs, but they only have capacity to run 500-800 tests a day, which is nowhere near what we need for the population being funneled into those systems.  

Honestly, the plan about mobile testing in Target and Wal-Mart parking lots isn't a bad one. But I don't think any of that is happening, anywhere in the US. It's all still tied to hospital locations, afaik. 

My Danish friend's kid had a cough....worrisome since school started back up this week for them.  Her entire family was tested, and once they were shown to be covid-19 negative, then she same day had a doctor appointment to rule out asthma and other issues.  That kind of immediate responsitivity is what is needed but lacking in my stomping grounds. Even if we got to that point for people who have insurance, we still have a lot of people who avoid the doctor because of the expense of going. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something that I've found particularly distressing. A town in Iowa-Columbus Junction. 2010 census said it had 1,899 residents. It's home to a Tyson pork plant, which of course is the town's largest employer. A week ago 24 workers tested positive. Two have died. Last I heard, 186 workers have tested positive: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2020/04/14/testing-rural-iowa-covid-19-coronavirus-tyson-food-pork-processing/2989203001/

That doesn't even include the family members, and the town has a 10% infection rate. 

Now I am hearing on FB/underground sources that out-of-work employees from that plant are being sent to another local plant. It's just mind-boggling. That small, rural town is not going to survive this. How is that plant going to replace all the workers that die? How are the families going to survive? How is THIS better for the economy than if things had just been shut down in the first place?

Why isn't this getting more attention? 

Edited by OH_Homeschooler
  • Sad 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boston homeless shelter, "Of the 397 people tested, 146 people tested positive. Not a single one had any symptoms."

https://www.krmg.com/news/national/coronavirus-cdc-reviewing-stunning-universal-testing-results-from-boston-homeless-shelter/tPL2WCG42CXensDpmDhqCO/

Homeless more likely to have enough vitamin D?  

Everyone, please forward at least this poster, preferably the whole study as well, to your friends in health care.  The poster recommends testing, tracking, and treating vitamin D levels in all coronavirus patients.

Study:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ka7h4fbi7xdz9s9/Covid-19 and Vitamin D Information.pdf?dl=0

Poster:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ROn9Si3jXQzfgAwijH4JMv-n7wYJwrAMAefIM4kULkg/edit

The one doctor that I know of that is tracking D levels, Dr. Erik Hermstad, said on twitter, "I haven't seen any vitamin D levels in the 40's or higher yet on ANY patient I've admitted with it [COVID-19]."

Edited by ElizabethB
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, square_25 said:

That seem way too high given the 65 deaths and the credible estimates of the IFR being about 0.5 to 1%. I would be VERY curious how good their antibody test is. 

I don't know enough about antibody tests to know if serology(?) tests are reliable or not. But I think the point is that it is high, higher than we thought, and since we're only testing the sickest people in most parts of the world this study is trying to find the true IFR as best they can. But this does seem to really bottom out the IFR.

As the saying goes, this is big if true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, square_25 said:

That seem way too high given the 65 deaths and the credible estimates of the IFR being about 0.5 to 1%. I would be VERY curious how good their antibody test is. 

Factor in that Santa Clara county has a median age of 37 and I don't think that's so out there.

Plus Californians in general are pretty healthy and would have decent levels of vit d in that region of the state. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I just mean we've had other antibody tests that didn't give anything like this for the IFR. The antibody tests seem to not be super reliable from what I read, and they have trouble distinguishing immunity from small reactions from immunity to OTHER coronaviruses. 

If you assume half of New York state is infected (!), you already get an IFR of 0.16%. That's with all the deaths so far, never mind the ones coming up!! And the median age is 38. And I very much doubt we really have 10 million infected. 

The IFR calculated in the Germany study was 0.37%. 

This doesn't compute. 

well, it could vary by region, no? I mean, don't a lot of illnesses have varying factors that would make ifrs different in different places?

Eta: I have also read this about some antibody tests, but then read that some are 97% accurate. I don't know which tests are which, but I wouldn't think they would pre-publish this on a low accuracy test if that is the whole point of the study itself?

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Smithfield pork plants....just because someone is testing positive doesn't mean that they are needing interventionary healthcare.  They will, statistically, recover and move on.  It's really inconvenient now for that small town, but it's a blip and life will carry on.  I expect that these kinds of things will be happening for the next couple of years and why we will continue to have supply and logistical gaps on and off.

Most meat packing towns are small and rural, not close to major medical facilities.  They also tend to have a higher percentage of immigrant labor, and lower access to quality medical care.  They are good paying jobs for those communities, but not something most urban families would consider a living wage.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re NY Columbia Presbyterian maternity ward data (to be clear, the doctors are definitely *not* presenting this as a full-scale peer-reviewed study; only as raw data that they've collected)...

... and how extrapolate-able it might be:

14 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

Oh, super interesting, and thank you. I've read the study of pregnant women but didn't hear this. 

I wonder if you'd expect the rate of asymptomatic people to be higher or lower during pregnancy? I know there's immune system suppression during pregnancy... 

 

So (as noted above) the rate of COVID-positve, but asymptomatic, people in that all-female, all-young, all-pregnant, sample of 215 who showed up because they were in labor (and not because of extreme, or any, flu-like symptoms)... First: of the 215 women who showed up in labor, 33 ((or 15.3%) were COVID positive.  Second: of the 33 who were positive, 29 (87.9%) showed no symptoms at the time of admission.

Reasons why that 15.3% incidence might be higher than elsewhere:

  • The data was from a cohort in New York City in late March, where the disease was already spreading, so their baseline population was higher than the nation's
  • That cohort likely went to more pre-natal appointments in late Feb-early March than the typical NYC person, in medical offices or hospitals where the disease may (?) have already been spreading; or with medical personnel who may (?) have inadvertently been carrying, so they may (?) have been exposed at higher rates than the general NYC population
  • That cohort includes second- and third-time mothers, who may (?) have been exposed at rates higher than the general NYC population  through their asymptomatic toddlers and schoolchildren
  • That cohort includes women/morthers, who may (?) have sallied out to get groceries/other essentials at higher rates than the general NYC population
  • That cohort was all pregnant, which is generally associated with immune suppression, so they may (?) have contracted at higher rates than the general NYC population

Reasons why that 15.3% incidence might be lower than elsewhere:

  • Pregnant women may (?) be more conscious/cautious about both germs and unnecessary risk, and thus more avoidant of potentially infectious places and conditions in the run-up to March 22 (during which time New Yorkers, if not other places, were *very conscious* that COVID was coming) than the general NYC population

Reasons why that 87.9% asymptomatic rate might be higher among pregnant women than among other cohorts:

  • Pregnant women may (?) eat better, take more vitamins, and thus be in comparatively better baseline health than the general NYC population;
  • There may (?) be something about hormone or other factors associated with pregnancy that inhibits COVID's expression.

 

All of which to say -- as the obstetric doctors themselves do say -- that the takeaway here is not so much the particular percentages down to the decimal, but rather the Big Picture insight about the invisibility of transmission.  This is an enemy we cannot see.  

Until we have *ubiquitous and repeated* testing we simply will not know where the enemy is lurking. That is neither a political, nor a scaremongering, nor a scapegoating statement: it's just how the virus transmits. Through carriers who genuinely have no idea they're carrying.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TracyP said:

Factor in that Santa Clara county has a median age of 37 and I don't think that's so out there.

Plus Californians in general are pretty healthy and would have decent levels of vit d in that region of the state. 

We do have a lot of foreign born here as in lots of relatives visiting during the period of Christmas up to Chinese New Year. 

The weather has been rather gloomy lately. Ironically there was more sunshine in my area in February/March before the shelter in place kick in. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52291326

Some news pieces about how Europe is slowly reopening.

The article from BBC I linked said kids aren't wearing masks. From Facebook photos of her kids at school, I'd say some people are. I'd also say some people are keeping their kids home. They still have Danish tv going---with singing time, exercise time, etc.  Like, the community attitude towards making a common sacrifice and staying at home is less contentious than here in my community. I haven't heard what the plan is for older students. Both of my friend's kids are in elementary.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, square_25 said:

What exactly is he explaining here? That if you adjust the denominator way up, the IFR goes way down? I think most people know that already. The question is rather "Is this a reasonable estimate of the denominator?" 

I think yes? I'm still reading and trying to digest. Do you know anything about the antibody test they were using? Or sero prevalence tests in general? Or the larger MLB study he mentions?

I mean, this seems to good to be true, but good news would be...good...right now.

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

I'm not a biologist, so only what I've read in the last month :-P. But it's easy to overestimate immunity for the reasons I said: you can catch small reactions that aren't enough to cause immunity and you can catch reactions to other viruses in the same family. 

This is actually something I've been wondering about for a long time and these antibody tests make me wonder even more. We know everyone is naive to Sars2, but definitely not naive to other coronaviruses. If some other cv's are so closely related to Sars2 that they pop up on a highly specific antibody test, would that also mean they confer some immunity or protection to someone who gets sars2?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

re rural area hotspots like Smithfield

32 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

RE: Smithfield pork plants....just because someone is testing positive doesn't mean that they are needing interventionary healthcare.  They will, statistically, recover and move on.  It's really inconvenient now for that small town, but it's a blip and life will carry on.  I expect that these kinds of things will be happening for the next couple of years and why we will continue to have supply and logistical gaps on and off....

Right -- most COVID positive will, statistically, not need significantly interventionary healthcare. A sizable segment will not show any symptoms ever. Of those that get sick, a sizable segment will recover without requiring hospitalization. 

They will, statistically, infect others, recover if they even get sick, and move on.  

The "infect others" part is key, though.

 

32 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

...Most meat packing towns are small and rural, not close to major medical facilities.  They also tend to have a higher percentage of immigrant labor, and lower access to quality medical care.  They are good paying jobs for those communities, but not something most urban families would consider a living wage.

Which is why both the treatment and the transmission in rural areas will play out differently than in NY.

My father-in-law was in first a hospital, then step-down rehab, in NYC throughout January and February for issues wholly unrelated to COVID. And we were *panicked* that he would contract COVID *at those medical facilities.*  The writing was on the wall already and we all -- the family, the patients, the rehab center medical workers, anybody paying attention -- KNEW that the protocols and PPE were vastly inadequate to stop transmission. By mid-February all visitors were prohibited.  Everyone *knew* that transmission was occurring in medical centers... there just were insufficient supplies of necessary equipment to stop it.  It was absolutely a slow-mo train wreck that everyone saw coming but were powerless to stop.  (FIL was released in early April and is now home, still recovering but still COVID-free.) 

 

Rural transmission will be different.  Even though the handful of Smithfield employees who do require hospitalization will show up in the major medical facilities... as will the maternity patients and the cardiac arrests... so there *will* be *some* risk there... hospitals by now have FAR better information about what protocols are necessary to tamp down transmission; and while PPE shortages still exist hospitals are in far better shape now than NY was in February and March.  So the bulk of rural transmission will not occur in medical centers. It will start with workers in too-closely-packed conditions with lousy safety and sanitation processes that close too late and re-open too soon without sufficient cleaning; and will transmit at places like Walmart, and schools if they re-open, and church gatherings.

 

Edited by Pam in CT
formatting error
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, likely those small towns will have herd immunity earlier.

Of the meat packing town I am familiar with, most of those families do not really leave those communities either. They are too distant from other towns, and they may be without a vehicle. (Meat packing towns smell BAD---the scent can carry for 15-20 miles on strong wind days.)  Typically they get their groceries from a small wal-mart or from Dollar General in town.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

The spot said the trend was happening nationwide, and quoted stats from lots of different states, so WA might be an exception - perhaps exhibiting the same rationality that led to the state not being ovrerun with Covid in spite of it having gotten there so early! It's not just what the govt demands, but what the people actually do...

I'm in the midwest and my auto insurer is giving me a rebate also.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Right, likely those small towns will have herd immunity earlier.

Of the meat packing town I am familiar with, most of those families do not really leave those communities either. They are too distant from other towns, and they may be without a vehicle. (Meat packing towns smell BAD---the scent can carry for 15-20 miles on strong wind days.)  Typically they get their groceries from a small wal-mart or from Dollar General in town.  

I have high hopes that COVID immunity will turn out to "hold" over time, and that herd immunity will ultimately protect us.

If so, that will many months out, *after* either widespread infection (whether "widespread" turns out ex post to be a 4% infections-requiring-hospitalization rate/ 0.5% fatality rate... or a 20% infections-requiring-hospitalization rate/ 2% fatality rate, or something in between); or *after* a vaccine is not just developed but is also actually deployed at the 70++% rates required for herd immunity.  

That is: EITHER after a whole lot more life-threatening/ personally bankrupting/ macro economically- and supply-chain disruptive illness and death, OR the development and near-universal deployment of a vaccine. Either one is many months out.  Neither can be achieved without a whole lot more disruption to health, happiness and the economy.  In the interim until we get there: isolation, more and more efficient procurement of PPE and testing to separate the COVID-positive, develop treatments so more of those who do get infected can recover, faster.

 

(Again: neither political, nor scaremongering, nor scapegoating. It's just the reality of how this invisible enemy is operating. Among us all.) 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

I just mean we've had other antibody tests that didn't give anything like this for the IFR. The antibody tests seem to not be super reliable from what I read, and they have trouble distinguishing immunity from small reactions from immunity to OTHER coronaviruses. 

This is what I'm concerned about. There was another thread about how unreliable these antibody tests are, that they will show a positive result if the person had any of several coronaviruses, not just CV19.

Also, it should be noted that this is the study that's connected to/promoted by the Hoover Institute.  Bhattacharya isn't just a professor in the med school, he is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and he has been saying since day 1 that shut downs are not worth the economic damage. He is not some disinterested medical researcher looking for infection numbers, he is specifically looking for stats that will justify his preferred economic policies.  I would love to find out that vastly more people than we think have already had it and we are much closer to herd immunity, but so far Bhattacharya's own study seems to be the only one that supports his theory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

This is what I'm concerned about. There was another thread about how unreliable these antibody tests are, that they will show a positive result if the person had any of several coronaviruses, not just CV19.

Also, it should be noted that this is the study that's connected to/promoted by the Hoover Institute.  Bhattacharya isn't just a professor in the med school, he is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and he has been saying since day 1 that shut downs are not worth the economic damage. He is not some disinterested medical researcher looking for infection numbers, he is specifically looking for stats that will justify his preferred economic policies.  I would love to find out that vastly more people than we think have already had it and we are much closer to herd immunity, but so far Bhattacharya's own study seems to be the only one that supports his theory.

I was the person who brought that up in the other thread because the company itself said that was tru of their test. The test used for this study seems to be a different type of test with higher accuracy and tends to give false negatives more often than false positives (if I'm reading the caveats correctly). That said, there seem to be concerns for this study with how subjects were selected (i.e. people volunteered because they had a bug in Feb/March and wanted to know if it was covid or not).

Do you know if the 10 other authors listed are similarly aligned? Do you think they would fudge the numbers to get results they want?

I actually have been wondering about the inverse..if the ifr is lower than current thinking and asymptomatic/super mild cases are much higher because we don't have testing resources available, what is the blowback on that?

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Ah, thank you for the context. 

Also, these percentages are very small. So we’re multiplying by numbers like 0.02, which means even a teeeeny false positive rate will make a huge difference in the eventual denominator. It’s not like messing up 15 percent by a percent or two!! False positives could literally be the majority of your universe. 

Isn't that caveated in the paper itself? I'm trying to find the quote.

It says they adjusted for test performance characteristics as far as I can tell. I can't copy and paste from my phone because it's a weird pdf.

Edited by EmseB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Wait. Wait. They selected for people with respiratory symptoms?? Please tell me they didn’t scale all those up to the whole population.

This is why peer review is so crucial. Even with peer review, people mess up statistics all the time. Right now, I literally can’t tell what percentage of the studies are even remotely useful. I don’t have enough information!!

No they didn't select for symptoms. Did you read the paper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TCB said:

I agree that the politicizing of this is coming from both sides of the great US divide. It amazes me and makes me extremely sad that even in a pandemic people feel they have to take sides - maybe I’m just naive - I have the impression that in previous times of hardship like the World Wars etc people pulled together - but maybe that’s just romantic nonsense.

I’ve been saddened, too.  Like, I feel like if it was WWII and we were told to give up our stockings, we all would, and we’d feel patriotic for doing so. 

On some various FB groups I belong to, people are flipping out about their rights being infringed and they Will Not wear a mask. Meanwhile, on other groups people are encouraging each other to wear masks and sharing sewing patterns.  (My state, PA, and the one next to me, MD, have some sort of rulings in place that you can’t enter businesses without a mask or you face fines and jail.)

One group believes X (overblown hype and power grabs) about this pandemic and the other believes Y (a world-wide crisis that requires extreme action), often based on what news media they watch.  And each group believes the other is filled with unthinking lemmings.  

And that’s painful.  We’re sooo divided in what we believe about this thing, based on what news source we listen to.  And the news sources are based on what side politically they fall.  

So it’s all political and I have no idea how we can unite.

Edited by Garga
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Nope, I was just going off your comment. I’ll read when my kiddo gives me my computer back.

But you said that it was people who had had a cold. That is not representative. Am I misunderstanding?

I didn’t read it yet either, but it seems the sample is self selected. (Based on comments here) 

Edited by Paige
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Garga said:

 

One group believes X (overblown hype and power grabs) about this pandemic and the other believes Y (a world-wide crisis that requires extreme action), often based on what news media they watch.  And each group believes the other is filled with unthinking lemmings.  

 

Part of the problem is the idea that there is a group x and a group y.  

Most people are really somewhere in between.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

I was at a Church women's conference last year and the speaker was talking about a lot of things but mentioned saving our planet and using reusable bottles all the time, reusable bags for groceries, etc.  I had to explain to people that I can't use reusable bags for groceries because of my immune issues. I also mentioned that I use plastic water bottles too again because of health.  There were some people who derided me for not caring about the environment--- and I didn't really defend myself - although I do the responsible things for the environment that I can- not litter, if i have disposable gloves around-  pick up other's litter, recycle, and support various environmental groups through donations.

I am worse when I drink local water, as well.  I use a Berkey at home and have also had people deride me for my use of water bottles.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Nope, I was just going off your comment. I’ll read when my kiddo gives me my computer back.

But you said that it was people who had had a cold. That is not representative. Am I misunderstanding?

Sorry, I didn't mean that to come across as snarky, I just honestly thought we were both reading the same paper.

Yes to misunderstanding. I'm saying that according to the authors they recruited via FB and then adjusted for population demographics, but it isn't clear to me that they adjusted based on possible symptoms in Feb/March.

In any case, we *all* agree that there are way more cases out there than are being reported, right? And there are a lot of asymptomatic carriers of sars2? The disagreement is on how many and what that means for IFR?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Garga said:

I’ve been saddened, too.  Like, I feel like if it was WWII and we were told to give up our stockings, we all would, and we’d feel patriotic for doing so. 

On some various FB groups I belong to, people are flipping out about their rights being infringed and they Will Not wear a mask. Meanwhile, on other groups people are encouraging each other to wear masks and sharing sewing patterns.

One group believes X (overblown hype and power grabs) about this pandemic and the other believes Y (a world-wide crisis that requires extreme action), often based on what news media they watch.  And each group believes the other is filled with unthinking lemmings.  

And that’s painful.  We’re sooo divided in what we believe about this thing, based on what news source we listen to.  And the news sources are based on what side politically they fall.  

So it’s all political and I have no idea how we can unite.

I looked into it briefly, because the nostalgic tale of cheerful patriotism and sacrifice during WWII seemed a bit rose-coloured.

This (quite long!) article seems to get into the things you are thinking of -- whether people questioned or resisted rationing, whether they accused political opponents of exaggeration, whether they expressed anger when their rights were infringed upon, etc.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/06/how-world-war-ii-almost-broke-american-politics-227090

A relevant quote from about half way through is, "The administration's desire for unity did not, of course, erase deep-seated racial, ethnic and religious tensions—tensions that flared up as Americans came to chafe at the imposition of greater government control and taxation in the war years." The article carries on to give examples of people accusing and blaming minorities (that they already hated) for the hardships based on the belief that "someone" must be benefiting from the economic hardships. So, at least you aren't seeing the tension expressing itself as bigotry and violence. Maybe that's a comfort.

The article does substantiate that there was a very high level of "popular dissatisfaction with sacrifices imposed by the wartime state" -- not the rosy-cheeked happy patriots one might see grinning about going without ordinary things for the sake of the war.

Political partisanship and conflict was also at very high levels. FDR was widely attacked for being an outright 'communist' by conservative American news sources. An election for his fourth term was, "a filthy fight, and all the more so with so many soldiers and sailors fighting abroad. The president won comfortably, but with a smaller margin than in any of his previous elections."

"[T]he spirit of unity and camaraderie that we remember may over-sentimentalize a more complicated story."

"This spirit of triumphalism masked a darker reality: In 1940 and 1941, the Roosevelt administration faced widespread resistance, particularly from auto companies, to switch from civilian to war production."

"It should not surprise us that people could act both for the greater good and out of personal motivation."

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bolt. said:

I looked into it briefly, because the nostalgic tale of cheerful patriotism and sacrifice during WWII seemed a bit rose-coloured.

My parents were born in Asia during WWII and their older siblings as well as my grandparents said everyone was going on the basis of self preservation. Nobody (except maybe the wealthy) was cheerful. People were more of outwardly complying and going underground on “illegal” behavior. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EmseB said:

Did anyone post this already? (Pre-print study) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1

Thank you for posting this. I've been watching for the preliminary results of this study for the last few days.

2 hours ago, EmseB said:

I don't know enough about antibody tests to know if serology(?) tests are reliable or not

"We also adjust for test performance characteristics using 3 different estimates: (i) the test manufacturer's data, (ii) a sample of 37 positive and 30 negative controls tested at Stanford, and (iii) a combination of both."

It looks like the specificity was 99.5% or higher and the sensitivity was between 67.6-91.8%. I think that means their serology test almost always gives back a true negative but sometimes misses the true positives (giving a false negative). They checked their kits vs. Pre-COVID19 samples to see if the test would pick up other coronaviruses and 369 out of 371 tested negative (I think that was the 99.5% number).

"In medical diagnosis, test sensitivity is the ability of a test to correctly identify those with the disease (true positive rate), whereas test specificity is the ability of the test to correctly identify those without the disease (true negative rate)."

So, their results might be low for true positives, right?

I think this is a great study and if this were repeated across the nation, would give a better idea of the true spread in each area. I don't think you can extrapolate to the country as a whole, but certainly you can for the zip codes they included in their study. What it tells me is there isn't much herd immunity there. Only 1.5% of their sample tested positive (but their sample didn't match the county so they had to adjust it).

Still, that scales up to a lot more positives in their area than what the current tested cases in their area indicate. That's what the study was trying to find - the infection rate, right? Anyway, since their test probably missed some positives, that's the low end.

... Also, sorry, I'm behind on reading posts. They did NOT select for respiratory symptoms. But some of the recruited people might have signed up because they thought they had already had Covid-19 and wanted to know (self-selection bias?).

Edited by RootAnn
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, square_25 said:

Yeah, I think there are vast undercounts on the numbers of cases. Practically no one is testing anyone but the sickest people. 

I think Iceland and New Zealand would be the ones to watch for accurate CFRs. 

We are currently at 11 deaths for 1400 positives. But those 11 deaths are not randomly distributed.  6 of the deaths were in the special care part of a bigger nursing home, and these residents were 85+ years old and very frail.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Yeah, I do not think anyone is getting randomly distributed deaths. 

So the question then is how do we use a CFR?  Is it useful at all?  How does it inform policy? 

For example, with 11 deaths, that would mean that we would have may 50 in the hospital based on overseas numbers?  But we don't, we only have ever had 15 at the max because of this group in a single nursing home.  They are close to 100% death rate, so deaths=hospital beds. So we can't use the CFR to inform the number of bed we need.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

Any idea what your cumulative hospitalization rate is, by the way? 

Ah, we were writing at the same time and thinking the same thing.

We have had somewhere between 13-15 people in hospital for 3 weeks.  And a lot of those are the same people.  My guess is maybe 50-75 in total out of 1400 cases. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was an interesting article that reports on what I commented on anecdoctally about how the Asian communities in the US responded to this way ahead of the rest of the country.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/How-San-Francisco-s-Chinatown-Got-Ahead-of-the-15207797.php?fbclid=IwAR0VvlolNDrnrCJQFwle9U2FeD_XKkY53rLAzXsLPSS6iJ2ar7-dpFFz9jg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

Welp, apparently it's not auto deaths leading the decline... just watching a spot on CBS This Morning. .. rather than going down, auto deaths are actually spiking now in spite of lower traffic, due to increased speeding. Traffic speeds are up 30% in CA; in Minnesota,  traffic deaths have doubled

I know around here people seem to be driving worse than usual (and the usual isn't that great).   They are being less careful when needing to pass on the wrong side of the road, driving faster, ignoring stop signs, etc.  I think less cars being on the road makes them feel like they don't need to be so careful.   I don't know about speeding because I haven't been on a highway in ages. 

1 hour ago, Garga said:

I’ve been saddened, too.  Like, I feel like if it was WWII and we were told to give up our stockings, we all would, and we’d feel patriotic for doing so. 

On some various FB groups I belong to, people are flipping out about their rights being infringed and they Will Not wear a mask. Meanwhile, on other groups people are encouraging each other to wear masks and sharing sewing patterns.  (My state, PA, and the one next to me, MD, have some sort of rulings in place that you can’t enter businesses without a mask or you face fines and jail.)

One group believes X (overblown hype and power grabs) about this pandemic and the other believes Y (a world-wide crisis that requires extreme action), often based on what news media they watch.  And each group believes the other is filled with unthinking lemmings.  

And that’s painful.  We’re sooo divided in what we believe about this thing, based on what news source we listen to.  And the news sources are based on what side politically they fall.  

So it’s all political and I have no idea how we can unite.

I'm not seeing too much of this locally.  Most people on the general area groups seem to be in group Y - encouraging mask use, staying home, telling people not to be idiots.  But again, I'm in an area that this all feels very very real so that may be the difference.  Almost everyone seems to know someone who had/has it, and most know someone who knows someone who died.  

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Perhaps the next such study needs to ASK participants whether they had a cold in February?

Do you believe that people are likely to be able to answer that accurately? I would think most healthy people who get a cold in winter and are not sick enough to see a doctor wouldn't have taken note of it, or people might vaguely remember having been sick, but it was actually in January rather than February... I would  have no idea how long I've been sick now except that I noted it on the calendar because C19 was already in my area.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, we have only had 1 death that was someone who died *of* rather than *with* covid.  He was 70 years old and the father of the groom for our biggest cluster which was a wedding. 😞 All the others, were either in hospice already, or over 90, or with major underlying conditions. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

 I've been watching for the preliminary results of this study for the last few days.

Page 13 & 14 does not make sense to me. I am in Santa Clara County, near to San Jose which has a high number of cases and seems undersampled. Stanford hospital is in Palo Alto, cases are low in that city so it seems oversampled. I have an active Facebook account  (and Facebook knows which city I live in) and did not see the recruitment ad for this study. 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1.full.pdf

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I'd be a lot less skeptical if this lined up with other estimates. I'm glad their test seems good, although I would definitely like it tested specifically on people who've had other respiratory infections and not on some random sample. 

Did you really mean to type that you want the test to be on people who had respiratory infections ? That seems like it would end up meaning a higher positive rate? Or are you wondering if the test kit is catching other respiratory infections and calling them Covid-19 positive?

11 minutes ago, square_25 said:

By the way, is there any particular reason they didn't subtract off their expected false positive rate? During their testing, it did seem to be about 0.5%. Even at that extremely low rate of false negatives, that still seems like it's a third of their cases... and that's assuming it really is 0.5% false positive and no more. 

I'm not following your math (0.5% does not equal 1/3 of positives?). They seem to have more of a false negative rate -- 8%-33% of their negatives could have been positive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Yeah, it's way oversampled from Palo Alto. But then they attempted to adjust for that, which is again where it's easy enough to monkey about with numbers if you so choose, because there are so many possible ways you could adjust parameters, but at the end of the day you really mostly sampled from Palo Alto near Stanford... 

 

I thought there was a Stanford study where the participants are their healthcare staff. 

Below is my county’s most recent data but the trend is similar day on day.

Campbell Cupertino Gilroy Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Milpitas Monte Sereno
28 21 35 21 <10 23 59 <10
 
Morgan Hill Mountain View Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Saratoga Sunnyvale Other/Unknown
31 40 63 1202 83 10 99 106
Edited by Arcadia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...