Jump to content

Menu

wuhan - coronavirus


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Where's Toto? said:

Mask mandates seem to have made a clear difference in NJ.    Both the original mask mandate and then adding outdoor when we had a few spikes over the summer.   Compliance is pretty high in public places.  

But isn't NJ also closer to herd immunity due to being the worst hit state so far in terms of death rate?  I would think cases couldn't possibly do anything but decrease at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 18.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ausmumof3

    3737

  • Pen

    2548

  • Arcadia

    1337

  • Corraleno

    329

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

DS got home 3 hours ago!  ❤️❤️

Update-  my youngest is not only short of breath, coughing, dizzy, nausaues, and with headache-  she is also confused.  I called our doctor and talked with him and she is going to be going to the ER.

Thought I'd post a pic of my dd, getting ready to spend another day in a coronavirus triage tent!  

29 minutes ago, SKL said:

But isn't NJ also closer to herd immunity due to being the worst hit state so far in terms of death rate?  I would think cases couldn't possibly do anything but decrease at this point.

Nope, we aren't anywhere close to herd immunity based on testing, and we've had really good testing for a while.    We may be small but we're very populated.  We've had around 188,000 cases out of a population of 8.8 million.  My county alone has 500,000 people and "only" around 7,000 confirmed cases and around 700 deaths.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.wired.com/story/a-new-study-suggests-a-possible-disease-vector-germy-dust/?mbid=social_tw_sci&utm_brand=wired-science&utm_medium=social&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=twitter
 

dust as a potential virus spreader?

Our experiments very clearly show that when guinea pigs move around they stir up dust. And if that dust is contaminated with virus, then it can transmit that virus through the air to another animal in a separate cage,” says Ristenpart. Their work also raises the possibility that this fourth route of transmission—aerosolized fomites—could potentially matter for human health as well, he says. Especially during a global outbreak of a new respiratory virus. “When you rub your face or brush your shirt or crumple a piece of tissue paper, you’re aerosolizing micron-scale particulates,” says Ristenpart. “And if that surface had been previously contacted by virus-containing mucus, then you’re also aerosolizing virus that other people can inhale.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17888-w

(the study on influenza a and guinea pigs)


 

 

Quoting partly just to bring attention.

I saw something specific to CV19 about dust as a spreader. Yes. Is the answer. 

Both aerosolized fomites and virus riding on larger floating particles (like ash from fires even I wonder? I think the thing I saw found it catching rides on vehicle exhaust.)  

 

I also keep wondering about instructions to say not to touch masks but don’t caution about clothes. There’s likely to be virus getting on clothes as well as masks and hands. We wash our hands more often than clothes. 

 

It may matter increasingly as cases in an area rise, so that surface cleaning of groceries etc may be right to do, just not so much needed when there were not yet many cases in community. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Looks like European countries have had bars and nightclubs open for some time and are having to shut them down again.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-appeared-to-be-under-control-in-europe-now-its-surging-again-11597848444?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/CrAHMScMpx

 

Yes. I can’t read WSJ, but have seen indications of a sustained rise in parts of Europe elsewhere also. As well as having seen that by following the day trends on “our world in data” - Which was disputed by Matryoshka on another thread as not counting.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I think mask mandates didn't work quickly here is that they only apply to say, stores, businesses, etc. But the people that were already infected continued to spread the disease to friends, extended family, etc. 

People are still getting together, unmasked, to hang out, have lunch, birthday parties, etc. So the spread slowed, but when you already had that many people infected, and they are still getting together in other places, it doesn't just stop in its tracks. 

oh! And we still have indoor dining here - and you don't have to wear a mask while at your table. So that's another issue. 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

The reason I think mask mandates didn't work quickly here is that they only apply to say, stores, businesses, etc. But the people that were already infected continued to spread the disease to friends, extended family, etc. 

People are still getting together, unmasked, to hang out, have lunch, birthday parties, etc. So the spread slowed, but when you already had that many people infected, and they are still getting together in other places, it doesn't just stop in its tracks. 

oh! And we still have indoor dining here - and you don't have to wear a mask while at your table. So that's another issue. 

I’ve noticed decreases after mask mandates for sure. I think it’s not immediate because of the reasons you gave plus the person usually lives with other people and they are likely to test positive at some point afterwards.  It needs to go through those close contacts but in the meantime is being stopped by masks from spreading much beyond. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am trying to find information on cardiomyopathy persisting beyond “recovery” from initial illness and similar severe problems from Covid 19 in Scandinavia.  If anyone sees anything on this, please bring to my attention!  TIA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/02/study-confirms-vitamin-d-protects-against-cold-and-flu/
 

I know you guys already know all this and it’s not covid specific but yet another study with good evidence for vitamin D 

 

https://www.fxmedicine.com.au/blog-post/vitamin-d-vs-flu-vaccine-there-stand-out-winner

 

“The results of these two studies suggests that vitamin D may be almost 6 times more effective at preventing influenza than vaccination.

Interestingly too, evidence shows that those with lower vitamin D levels in the winter months are more likely to get influenza.[4]

In order to obtain a more accurate comparison between the efficacy of the flu vaccine and vitamin D supplementation, a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial comparing the two interventions directly would be ideal”

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

I am trying to find information on cardiomyopathy persisting beyond “recovery” from initial illness and similar severe problems from Covid 19 in Scandinavia.  If anyone sees anything on this, please bring to my attention!  TIA. 

I just saw a tweet claiming someone died from it after asymptomatic covid.  But no source no details.  I’d also like to know if anyone sees more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I just saw a tweet claiming someone died from it after asymptomatic covid.  But no source no details.  I’d also like to know if anyone sees more.

 

I’m interested in Asymptomatic or almost Asymptomatic leading to severe problems like cardiomyopathy from anywhere in world!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TCB said:

Any word on the outbreak in New Zealand? Have they been able to confirm the source? I’ve started wiping down my frozen stuff again but would like to stop if it’s not necessary lol!

Last I saw they don’t believe it was the frozen foods because they swabbed and found only low level surface contamination which they deemed most likely to have come from the infected worker handling it. However that was yesterday and at that point they still hadn’t tracked the source so it’s hard to be absolutely certain I think. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry if this has been mentioned. 

Osterholm has some things to say about the media calling on so-called experts that may be experts in their field but not epidemiologists and how that is creating message chaos and confusion. Around the 50 minute mark he discusses the different  tests and goes into the real world problems with dipstick tests. To start, its self-selecting and young people would use it to after risky behavior, confirming to themselves that their risky behavior is not risky at all. 

https://youtu.be/upzHueYqZDA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Plum said:

sorry if this has been mentioned. 

Osterholm has some things to say about the media calling on so-called experts that may be experts in their field but not epidemiologists and how that is creating message chaos and confusion. Around the 50 minute mark he discusses the different  tests and goes into the real world problems with dipstick tests. To start, its self-selecting and young people would use it to after risky behavior, confirming to themselves that their risky behavior is not risky at all. 

https://youtu.be/upzHueYqZDA

 

 

Agh.  😡

Note: I only got part way through the long interview and may change this later, but I am commenting mainly on your own summary above particularly the bold part. And listening to that area of what he said. 

I  agree that there is major message confusion.  And Osterholm himself is part of that imo.

Take masks for example.

I know Fauci first came out against them and then later did a 180.

 

My recollection is that Osterholm didn’t do a complete 180, but he was fairly negative or at least not positive about masks on a quite similar basis to what you wrote above about dipsticks.  Masks, as I understood what he had conveyed (which could be wrong but if wrong means he himself may not be as clear in his messaging as he may think) would give a false sense of security, while at best they would only make it safe to do something like ride in a car with someone (positive) for 20 minutes instead of 10 minutes. 

That’s not necessarily incorrect. But it  (the false sense of security argument) is being used by people of good will and reasonable intelligence as a reason not to mask.   

So then as Masks were learned to probably help quite a lot, maybe around late July,  Osterholm came out and says he didn’t tell people not to mask. No. In anything I heard He did not directly say don’t mask.  But he said things that clearly gave that impression, that masks could give false sense of security and thus conveyed a sense of negativity toward masks. .   And he had a tone about it that made it sound to me like he thought it would be akin to thinking a layer of bubble wrap would help to protect from a fall off a tall building.  A “wear a mask if you want, but don’t expect it to help any” tone. 

 

So far as I can tell, young adults who believe their risky behavior is not risky, or who deliberately embrace risk are already doing that. Would dipstick tests increase that? Idk. But there are a lot of people in many many circumstances who won’t use such tests to justify high risk behavior and for whom it might, like masks, be another potentially extremely helpful tool to have.  

 

I think there are huge numbers of responsible people who could make good use of it by testing every few days even if completely Asymptomatic in terms of helping to decide even whether to go in to work or whether to send children to school and that it could be a huge help. I don’t think MO is correct that the world is divided between ultra-risky behavior young adults and people in tiny bubbles and who can stay that way indefinitely as the only ones who would use such tests. 

 

ETA And his argument that sounds like he thinks it would be especially bad for low income and so on and African Americans he mentioned specifically to be able to know whether they are positive because they cannot isolate is especially bizarre and or egregious sounding to me.  I think his hypothetical single mother might want to keep distance from her own children as much as she could for 14 days if she knew she were positive, and that we as a society might want to use other resources to help such a family to confirm the positive and to be able to isolate for days most likely to spread infection—not to prefer making it hard to know that there’s a positive so that they carry on as usual.  (Around 52 minutes point.)   I can certainly say for myself as a single parent with somewhat reduced resources that I would certainly want to know if my child or myself were positive and to do what could be done not to spread infection to each other (or at least lower the viral load—better no hugs for 2 weeks than both people really sick) and to do what one could to not spread infection to others.  Even if someone has to keep working, I don’t see how not knowing helps, other than  an “ignorance is bliss” type argument. 

 

Imo, approve the home dipstick type tests Give them a nice big black box warning that a negative result does not mean definitely negative. So don’t go do risky things based on a negative result. False negatives already exist for the current tests, which in many places are still very hard to access, and slow to get results for.  

And for some people even if testing does not have major hoops there are problems like living in a rural area 3 hours drive or more from nearest test location. Should one drive oneself if feeling ill? Should someone else drive the ill person using masks that only give 20 minutes in car protection?  

 

Is Osterholm leaving epidemiology and moving into psychology ?  What is his expertise in psychology?

 

even if he is strictly in his own area of expertise, Experts can make major errors.  

For a non current example,  Benjamin Rush (I think it was from books on viruses I have been reading) told people that yellow fever was caused by foul air and told people to flee yellow fever areas — thus spreading infectious disease far and wide.

 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Agh.  😡

Note: I only got part way through the long interview and may change this later, but I am commenting mainly on your own summary above particularly the bold part. And listening to that area of what he said. 

I  agree that there is major message confusion.  And Osterholm himself is part of that imo.

Take masks for example.

I know Fauci first came out against them and then later did a 180.

 

My recollection is that Osterholm didn’t do a complete 180, but he was fairly negative or at least not positive about masks on a quite similar basis to what you wrote above about dipsticks.  Masks, as I understood what he had conveyed (which could be wrong but if wrong means he himself may not be as clear in his messaging as he may think) would give a false sense of security, while at best they would only make it safe to do something like ride in a car with someone (positive) for 20 minutes instead of 10 minutes. 

That’s not necessarily incorrect. But it  (the false sense of security argument) is being used by people of good will and reasonable intelligence as a reason not to mask.   

So then as Masks were learned to probably help quite a lot, maybe around late July,  Osterholm came out and says he didn’t tell people not to mask. No. In anything I heard He did not directly say don’t mask.  But he said things that clearly gave that impression, that masks could give false sense of security and thus conveyed a sense of negativity toward masks. .   And he had a tone about it that made it sound to me like he thought it would be akin to thinking a layer of bubble wrap would help to protect from a fall off a tall building.  A “wear a mask if you want, but don’t expect it to help any” tone. 

 

So far as I can tell, young adults who believe their risky behavior is not risky, or who deliberately embrace risk are already doing that. Would dipstick tests increase that? Idk. But there are a lot of people in many many circumstances who won’t use such tests to justify high risk behavior and for whom it might, like masks, be another potentially extremely helpful tool to have.  

 

I think there are huge numbers of responsible people who could make good use of it by testing every few days even if completely Asymptomatic in terms of helping to decide even whether to go in to work or whether to send children to school and that it could be a huge help. I don’t think MO is correct that the world is divided between ultra-risky behavior young adults and people in tiny bubbles and who can stay that way indefinitely as the only ones who would use such tests. 

 

ETA And his argument that sounds like he thinks it would be especially bad for low income and so on and African Americans he mentioned specifically to be able to know whether they are positive because they cannot isolate is especially bizarre and or egregious sounding to me.  I think his hypothetical single mother might want to keep distance from her own children as much as she could for 14 days if she knew she were positive, and that we as a society might want to use other resources to help such a family to confirm the positive and to be able to isolate for days most likely to spread infection—not to prefer making it hard to know that there’s a positive so that they carry on as usual.  (Around 52 minutes point.)   I can certainly say for myself as a single parent with somewhat reduced resources that I would certainly want to know if my child or myself were positive and to do what could be done not to spread infection to each other (or at least lower the viral load—better no hugs for 2 weeks than both people really sick) and to do what one could to not spread infection to others.  Even if someone has to keep working, I don’t see how not knowing helps, other than  an “ignorance is bliss” type argument. 

 

Imo, approve the home dipstick type tests Give them a nice big black box warning that a negative result does not mean definitely negative. So don’t go do risky things based on a negative result. False negatives already exist for the current tests, which in many places are still very hard to access, and slow to get results for.  

And for some people even if testing does not have major hoops there are problems like living in a rural area 3 hours drive or more from nearest test location. Should one drive oneself if feeling ill? Should someone else drive the ill person using masks that only give 20 minutes in car protection?  

 

Is Osterholm leaving epidemiology and moving into psychology ?  What is his expertise in psychology?

 

even if he is strictly in his own area of expertise, Experts can make major errors.  

For a non current example,  Benjamin Rush (I think it was from books on viruses I have been reading) told people that yellow fever was caused by foul air and told people to flee yellow fever areas — thus spreading infectious disease far and wide.

 

I thought you’d have some things to say about what he said. 
 

I do appreciate different perspectives on this. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Plum said:

I thought you’d have some things to say about what he said. 
 

I do appreciate different perspectives on this. 

 

I am still steamed about the Osterholm talk, or at least the part around 50 min in I listened to.  

I want to keep thinking experts make “errors”. 

But Dr Zelenko used the term “genocide.”

and listening to the part about how it would be better for a single, maybe person of color, mom to not know...     I am thinking no. This is not mere error. Zelenko is right.  

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

I am still steamed about the Osterholm talk, or at least the part around 50 min in I listened to.  

I want to keep thinking experts make “errors”. 

But Dr Zelenko used the term “genocide.”

and listening to the part about how it would be better for a single, maybe person of color, mom to not know...     I am thinking no. This is not mere error. Zelenko is right.  

I'll have to listen to that part again. That is extreme. I have heard that line of thought before, specifically regarding people in small NY apartments needing to self-isolate. Our first apartment was a studio; expecting us to be able to self-isolate in that apt would have been impossible. I was thinking about those TB homes and even leper colonies (yeah I know) where we made a place for people to go to be cared for while they were sick and contagious. There doesn't seem to be enough options for families that live in small spaces to be able to protect one another. AFAIK, HCW got the free hotel rooms, not the cleaning crew. 

You should write to him. He answers questions all the time. Maybe he'll elaborate more on what he means. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plum said:

I'll have to listen to that part again. That is extreme. I have heard that line of thought before, specifically regarding people in small NY apartments needing to self-isolate. Our first apartment was a studio; expecting us to be able to self-isolate in that apt would have been impossible. I was thinking about those TB homes and even leper colonies (yeah I know) where we made a place for people to go to be cared for while they were sick and contagious. There doesn't seem to be enough options for families that live in small spaces to be able to protect one another. AFAIK, HCW got the free hotel rooms, not the cleaning crew. 

You should write to him. He answers questions all the time. Maybe he'll elaborate more on what he means. 

 

Yeah, maybe I’ll write to him. I’ve been writing to local school board currently where I think I have more potential impact. I probably should listen to the whole Cidrap youtube  to not possibly be misunderstanding the context first. 

——

 

I’ve lived in NYC studio too. Not being able to self isolate might still allow some ability to try to reduce viral load.  Open windows, use what one could use, including perhaps masks. Even sleep with heads facing away instead of same direction...  or perhaps for shared housing situations even curtaining an area with sheets might be possible to reduce viral load. 

My current living location isn’t great for isolating either since it’s a compact house with only one bathroom. But IMO it would be useful to know and to use major diligence following a positive test, a level of precaution which really cannot be maintained minute by minute for months, but certainly could be for a couple of weeks.

 I know in your family no one but your husband got sick even without particular precautions, but that is not guaranteed. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 cases in qld today.  6 are linked to the detention centre (6 positive and 56 negative so far - they are testing close to 600 people) and unfortunately several in people who work across multiple locations including one in. disability accommodation services.  3 cases in offshore cargo ships.

This is pretty seriously concerning.  Gatherings in homes and outdoors have been limited to 10 across Brisbane.  The rest of QLD have limits of 30 now.  Venues with covid safe plans can continue to operate at this stage as normal.

ABC: “Chief Health Officer Jeannette Young said there was a significant chance more cases would be detected over the coming days.

She said it was essential people got tested if they were feeling unwell.

"Everyone should think about their personal COVID-safe plan, and if they're in that vulnerable group, start thinking about how they can manage themselves," she said. 

"We'll get through this together, I'm very confident we will, if everybody listens to the messaging and we all play our part to keep everyone safe.

"The key is social distancing. 

"This weekend if you are going to a shopping centre and there is no social distancing, you should leave immediately."

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Plum said:

I'll have to listen to that part again. That is extreme. I have heard that line of thought before, specifically regarding people in small NY apartments needing to self-isolate. Our first apartment was a studio; expecting us to be able to self-isolate in that apt would have been impossible. I was thinking about those TB homes and even leper colonies (yeah I know) where we made a place for people to go to be cared for while they were sick and contagious. There doesn't seem to be enough options for families that live in small spaces to be able to protect one another. AFAIK, HCW got the free hotel rooms, not the cleaning crew. 

You should write to him. He answers questions all the time. Maybe he'll elaborate more on what he means. 

Here in my state any positive cases in a house with one bathroom get moved to medi hotels.  Obviously that’s only viable with low numbers though.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pen said:

 

I am still steamed about the Osterholm talk, or at least the part around 50 min in I listened to.  

I want to keep thinking experts make “errors”. 

But Dr Zelenko used the term “genocide.”

and listening to the part about how it would be better for a single, maybe person of color, mom to not know...     I am thinking no. This is not mere error. Zelenko is right.  

Yeah, you should listen to the whole thing. Dr. Osterholm's point was that the virus is now so widespread in the US that we can't test (and contact trace) ourselves out of the pandemic. Because so many people aren't willing to change their behavior. And that all the arguing in the media about how many tests are available and all the different types of tests and which tests are accurate vs inaccurate is all a big waste of time. We and the media should be focusing instead on getting people to understand that changing their behavior is the key to controlling the spread. Testing alone won't get us there.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TarynB said:

Yeah, you should listen to the whole thing. Dr. Osterholm's point was that the virus is now so widespread in the US that we can't test (and contact trace) ourselves out of the pandemic. Because so many people aren't willing to change their behavior. And that all the arguing in the media about how many tests are available and all the different types of tests and which tests are accurate vs inaccurate is all a big waste of time. We and the media should be focusing instead on getting people to understand that changing their behavior is the key to controlling the spread. Testing alone won't get us there.

 

That bigger point I certainly agree with.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

That bigger point I certainly agree with.  

Here's a link to a commentary Osterholm wrote approx a month ago about what he's actually said (and not said) about masks. Ironically, his position has been mischaracterized by folks on both sides. And so he's come out with a stronger message so hopefully his position is more clear to everyone. He works hard to avoid political issues, which makes some people dislike him, but like him or not, he genuinely appears to be data-driven.

As to the reference above about the illustrative single mom with two kids who could be a person of color and shares an apartment with her elderly parents and has to go out to work to provide for her family . . . the context of that example was coming from a place of empathy (and advocacy), not a slam or an insult. 

Edited by TarynB
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TarynB said:

Here's a link to a commentary Osterholm wrote approx a month ago about what he's actually said (and not said) about masks. Ironically, his position has been mischaracterized by folks on both sides. And so he's come out with a stronger message so hopefully his position is more clear to everyone. He works hard to avoid political issues, which makes some people dislike him, but like him or not, he genuinely appears to be data-driven.

 

"Cloth masks, I think are at the very bottom of the list. They have little impact if any. But they've become basically something that people feel like they have to do or want to do it. If they want to do it, go ahead."

In many areas, though, it's no longer a matter of whether you want to do it or not. In Michigan, masks are mandatory in any public place, including grocery stores. The mayor of Stillwater, Okla., rescinded a mask order after it was discovered that employees trying to enforce it were threatened with physical violence.

Dr. Osterholm ended his discussion about masks on The Morning News with Dave Lee by saying they just aren't that helpful in normal public places.

"I can tell you right now I don't believe that they play any major role in either preventing me from getting infected if I use it or if I am infected and don't know it. I don't have any symptoms. They don't protect those around me from using it."

I can’t find the original recording to verify.

but here’s one that’s still available:

 

 

https://youtu.be/rlGJLVEf3AE

 

Asked what can the average person do, the interviewer says he sees people walking around with masks and gloves on, is that nonsense?

Osterholm answers “Largely”  

and yes, he goes on with more detail, and nuance, but  the initial basic takeaway that I think can be heard from what he said is masks are largely nonsense.

 

ymmv

 

Edited by Pen
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

"Cloth masks, I think are at the very bottom of the list. They have little impact if any. But they've become basically something that people feel like they have to do or want to do it. If they want to do it, go ahead."

In many areas, though, it's no longer a matter of whether you want to do it or not. In Michigan, masks are mandatory in any public place, including grocery stores. The mayor of Stillwater, Okla., rescinded a mask order after it was discovered that employees trying to enforce it were threatened with physical violence.

Dr. Osterholm ended his discussion about masks on The Morning News with Dave Lee by saying they just aren't that helpful in normal public places.

"I can tell you right now I don't believe that they play any major role in either preventing me from getting infected if I use it or if I am infected and don't know it. I don't have any symptoms. They don't protect those around me from using it."

I can’t find the original recording to verify.

but here’s one that’s still available:

 

 

https://youtu.be/rlGJLVEf3AE

 

Asked what can the average person do, the interviewer says he sees people walking around with masks and gloves on, is that nonsense?

Osterholm answers “Largely”  

and yes, he goes on with more detail, and nuance, but  the initial basic takeaway that I think can be heard from what he said is masks are largely nonsense.

 

ymmv

 

I can see that you're firm in your opinion, and also that you didn't bother to read the link I provided.

As Dr. O wrote in the very first lines of the linked commentary, "Science, when done well, can be messy, imperfect, and slower than we wish. And it's ever-evolving." Yes, he said things back in March, which you referred to above, that he has since changed as more data has become available. As have many others. He's data-driven. If you want to have the last word, that's fine, and I don't care either way about your position, so I'm bowing out now, but what you've quoted from March is outdated information. Things have changed a LOT since March.

Edited by TarynB
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Pen said:

 

Agh.  😡

Note: I only got part way through the long interview and may change this later, but I am commenting mainly on your own summary above particularly the bold part. And listening to that area of what he said. 

I  agree that there is major message confusion.  And Osterholm himself is part of that imo.

Take masks for example.

I know Fauci first came out against them and then later did a 180.

 

My recollection is that Osterholm didn’t do a complete 180, but he was fairly negative or at least not positive about masks on a quite similar basis to what you wrote above about dipsticks.  Masks, as I understood what he had conveyed (which could be wrong but if wrong means he himself may not be as clear in his messaging as he may think) would give a false sense of security, while at best they would only make it safe to do something like ride in a car with someone (positive) for 20 minutes instead of 10 minutes. 

That’s not necessarily incorrect. But it  (the false sense of security argument) is being used by people of good will and reasonable intelligence as a reason not to mask.   

So then as Masks were learned to probably help quite a lot, maybe around late July,  Osterholm came out and says he didn’t tell people not to mask. No. In anything I heard He did not directly say don’t mask.  But he said things that clearly gave that impression, that masks could give false sense of security and thus conveyed a sense of negativity toward masks. .   And he had a tone about it that made it sound to me like he thought it would be akin to thinking a layer of bubble wrap would help to protect from a fall off a tall building.  A “wear a mask if you want, but don’t expect it to help any” tone. 

 

So far as I can tell, young adults who believe their risky behavior is not risky, or who deliberately embrace risk are already doing that. Would dipstick tests increase that? Idk. But there are a lot of people in many many circumstances who won’t use such tests to justify high risk behavior and for whom it might, like masks, be another potentially extremely helpful tool to have.  

 

I think there are huge numbers of responsible people who could make good use of it by testing every few days even if completely Asymptomatic in terms of helping to decide even whether to go in to work or whether to send children to school and that it could be a huge help. I don’t think MO is correct that the world is divided between ultra-risky behavior young adults and people in tiny bubbles and who can stay that way indefinitely as the only ones who would use such tests. 

 

ETA And his argument that sounds like he thinks it would be especially bad for low income and so on and African Americans he mentioned specifically to be able to know whether they are positive because they cannot isolate is especially bizarre and or egregious sounding to me.  I think his hypothetical single mother might want to keep distance from her own children as much as she could for 14 days if she knew she were positive, and that we as a society might want to use other resources to help such a family to confirm the positive and to be able to isolate for days most likely to spread infection—not to prefer making it hard to know that there’s a positive so that they carry on as usual.  (Around 52 minutes point.)   I can certainly say for myself as a single parent with somewhat reduced resources that I would certainly want to know if my child or myself were positive and to do what could be done not to spread infection to each other (or at least lower the viral load—better no hugs for 2 weeks than both people really sick) and to do what one could to not spread infection to others.  Even if someone has to keep working, I don’t see how not knowing helps, other than  an “ignorance is bliss” type argument. 

 

Imo, approve the home dipstick type tests Give them a nice big black box warning that a negative result does not mean definitely negative. So don’t go do risky things based on a negative result. False negatives already exist for the current tests, which in many places are still very hard to access, and slow to get results for.  

And for some people even if testing does not have major hoops there are problems like living in a rural area 3 hours drive or more from nearest test location. Should one drive oneself if feeling ill? Should someone else drive the ill person using masks that only give 20 minutes in car protection?  

 

Is Osterholm leaving epidemiology and moving into psychology ?  What is his expertise in psychology?

 

even if he is strictly in his own area of expertise, Experts can make major errors.  

For a non current example,  Benjamin Rush (I think it was from books on viruses I have been reading) told people that yellow fever was caused by foul air and told people to flee yellow fever areas — thus spreading infectious disease far and wide.

 

 

@TarynB

I know that it is old.

My initial statement, quoted above, to which I thought you were responding was that  he had not done a complete 180 on masks like Fauci did, but he had similarly substantially changed his stance on masking —

And the “old” statements were trying to show what I meant by his change from earlier statements, so yeah, of course it was old. 

I brought up the early  negative position on masks  that imo  

led to more spread than needs have been because I think the  his negative stance on dipstick tests now is quite similar. 

I think in numerous ways there is a problem with  official positions that go for a don’t use, or even don’t allow use of something in cases where gov approval is needed,  that could potentially help  (masks, dipstick test, ...)  initial stance. 

It seems to be an anti-precautionary principal approach.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

Real understanding of exponential growth (often unrelated to intelligence or education) and attitudes to the risk of Covid

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200812-exponential-growth-bias-the-numerical-error-behind-covid-19?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

 

Good article.  Thanks!!!

Yes.

And as homeschoolers, it is a great time to self educate and teach our children about exponential growth.  

 

I don’t know if it’s correct that 99% of Americans  would have embraced all distancing measures if they had understood. TBH   I think probably not.  But it at least could be tried to convey the concept to people who do not understand it and maybe it could help now.   If even 10 or 40 % additional people come to understand, and have that substantially influence behavior rather than a “my rights, you can’t make me” or similar attitude, that, coupled with exponential help from every case spread thus averted could still help hugely. 

 

Also a problem perhaps in missing the potential for  various mitigation factors that may be insufficient alone, but together can help with exponential decrease.  Because even when numbers are high, the way exponential decrease works, they can come down, more quickly than one might think without such an understanding. Even if not immediately decreasing by half and half again, it can still happen.  

What I see a lot of is a defeatism: Like case spread is already  so high, there’s no more point. Statements like, “well everyone is going to get it, so might as well ____”       And I read that here in some posts on WTM too. 

 

But just as the weeds in the pond can rapidly fill via exponential growth, so too they can rapidly recede with exponential decrease.  And that too needs to be understood. 

 

 

And, in fact, part of my issue with Osterholm and others as per the posts above—if behaviors and strategies  like mask wearing, and hand washing and dipstick tests or  _____ , can help either to reduce exponential growth or to help toward exponential reduction, an attitude perhaps especially from the science “experts” that says phooey to Masks, handwashing, etc (unless / until proven months later that it had an at least incremental benefit)  can lead to lack of using precautions that can become an enormous number of cases as the increment that might have mitigated,  but was not,  gets turned exponential over time.  

Far better, imo, to have wiped groceries and then discover that perhaps it was not needed, then to tell people they are being stupid to do it , until months later if it turns out it should have been done after all.

 Even something that doesn’t stop a lot of spread, but still does stop a portion of spread helps.  Even if just 2 early cases get stopped by a reasonable behavior, like, say,  handwashing,  it can have helped to have stopped those two cases from themselves expanding exponentially, 2, 4, 8, 16 ... and in a few months it’s a million. 

 

Imo, Precautionary principle is very important when growth is exponential.  Waiting 3 months or 3 years for studies to show that homemade masks could help some after all means a lot of probably excess deaths and long term sickness may have happened in the interim.  And the “experts” keep on doing that.  

 

It’s hugely important imo to look at the early bit of a hockey stick upward graph shape of something bad like pandemic spread happening and immediately take action.  

Moreover, and as we cannot go back to January or March, but Are where we are now, It is also important IMo to look at an early bit of exponential decrease happening and build on that improvement,  keep the positive trend going rather than discount it or stop the helpful actions or stop looking for yet more actions, behaviors, tools, etc.  that can add to the decrease trend. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Pen said:

But just as the weeds in the pond can rapidly fill via exponential growth, so too they can rapidly recede with exponential decrease.  And that too needs to be understood. 

 

Mathematically, this isn't exactly the same as what happens with the total number of cases.  We can't have a negative case rate.  We can reduce the R0, but the lowest R0 can go is zero.  For the pond you have two things--the number of weeds added each day (the number of new cases) and the cumulative number of weeds (total cases).  For the weeds to recede, there has to be some weeds that are there that disappear--in other words, you have to have a negative number of weeds in a new day.  An R0 less than 1 gives you a smaller and smaller decrease in cases each day, not an increasing decrease in cases each day (which you would need for an exponential decrease). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pond full of weeds can start losing them (say with the coming of cold weather, and an animal that likes to eat them, and a beaver turning them into dams) in much the same way it can fill...   One day a few are gone and then the next day even more and the next day even more...  as more cold comes and the animals bring some friends... and one day a pond that was chuck full in mid summer is nearly empty, and a few days after that can be all gone...     this is not really a theoretical mathematical issue - it is irl nature that I have personally observed 

in theory it should perhaps be like an Achilles Paradox and never reach zero.

 Irl a biological growth (whether in one single host or more broadly in a community or even in an epidemic) can go down to zero.   Very very very Sad if it’s Steller’s Sea Cows, better at least from human POV if it’s a pathogenic virus.    

A body gets sick, virus multiplies... if body starts to heal, virus inside usually decreases in number. (Assuming it isn’t going into a dormant stage). ...   similar happens also with groups...

Edited by Pen
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, square_25 said:

With an R0 below 1, you have exponential decrease in the NEW cases. Obviously, the cumulative cases don’t go down.

 

Right. Cumulative cases obviously don’t go down. New cases go down— and also existing cases resolve as deaths, recovery (or long term sequelae) ...   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, square_25 said:

With an R0 below 1, you have exponential decrease in the NEW cases. Obviously, the cumulative cases don’t go down.

If you have an R0 of .5--you have 1000 new cases, then 500 new cases, then 250 new cases, then 125 new cases, then 62.5 new cases--that is less than a linear decline in new cases, not an exponential decrease.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

Pond full of weeds can start losing them (say with the coming of cold weather, and an animal that likes to eat them, and a beaver turning them into dams) in much the same way it can fill...   One day a few are gone and then the next day even more and the next day even more...  as more cold comes and the animals bring some friends... and one day a pond that was chuck full in mid summer is nearly empty, and a few days after that can be all gone...     this is not really a theoretical mathematical issue - it is irl nature that I have personally observed 

in theory it should perhaps be like an Achilles Paradox and never reach zero.

 Irl a biological growth (whether in one single host or more broadly in a community or even in an epidemic) can go down to zero.   Very very very Sad if it’s Steller’s Sea Cows, better at least from human POV if it’s a pathogenic virus.    

A body gets sick, virus multiplies... if body starts to heal, virus inside usually decreases in number. (Assuming it isn’t going into a dormant stage). ...   similar happens also with groups...

The perspective depends upon whether you are looking at new cases, cumulative cases, or active cases.  The number of new cases can decline (and to zero), the number of active cases can decline (and to zero), the number cumulative cases can, at best, remain constant.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, square_25 said:

A linear decrease in new cases makes no sense, anyway — it would soon take you into the negatives. I would call exponentiation with a base under 1 exponential decrease. It’s much faster than decrease proportional to 1/x, say.

This is what your decrease would look like if you had an R0 of 0.5.  If you have 1000 people who infect 500, who infect 250, etc.  Is that what you would consider an exponential decrease?  I thought exponential decrease would be that at each round you would have a larger decrease in cases than in the previous round (like in the exponential increase each round gets more and more pronounced)

 

image.png.1c28b4a0dac0da8d296b429e7881d255.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

If you have an R0 of .5--you have 1000 new cases, then 500 new cases, then 250 new cases, then 125 new cases, then 62.5 new cases--that is less than a linear decline in new cases, not an exponential decrease.

 

Not what tends to happen IRL with biological situation afaik

 

 

greatly oversimplifying, 

the reduction itself tends to follow a typical normal exponential pattern, such as x^2 every several days or weeks— but going downward not upwards

Wherever you start say 100,000 new cases on Day 0 you don’t have 50,000 new on Day 1, 25,000 new on Day 2 etc. 

 

it starts in what often seems small and hardly perceptible drop just as exponential growth is easy to miss at first.  Something like 99,998 cases Day 1, 99,994 cases Day 2 (and actually the reduction doubling rate might be every few days or week not daily).  And at first it seems like nothing’s happening, nothing’s working just like exponential growth can seem like no big deal at first. But then “Day 6” it drops by ~ 1024 and “day 7” by another 2048 and “day 8” by around 4000, and “day 9” by around 8000, “day 10” by around 16,000, D11 by ~ 16,000, “D12” by ~ 32,000, D13 by ~ 64,000 ...   

It’s not simple of course, and almost certainly not going to drop daily like that with major pandemic...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Not what tends to happen IRL with biological situation afaik

 

 

greatly oversimplifying, 

the reduction itself tends to follow a typical normal exponential pattern, such as x^2 every several days or weeks— but going downward not upwards

Wherever you start say 100,000 new cases on Day 0 you don’t have 50,000 new on Day 1, 25,000 new on Day 2 etc. 

 

it starts in what often seems small and hardly perceptible drop just as exponential growth is easy to miss at first.  Something like 99,998 cases Day 1, 99,994 cases Day 2 (and actually the reduction doubling rate might be every few days or week not daily).  And at first it seems like nothing’s happening, nothing’s working just like exponential growth can seem like no big deal at first. But then “Day 6” it drops by ~ 1024 and “day 7” by another 2048 and “day 8” by around 4000, and “day 9” by around 8000, “day 10” by around 16,000, D11 by ~ 16,000, “D12” by ~ 32,000, D13 by ~ 64,000 ...   

It’s not simple of course, and almost certainly not going to drop daily like that with major pandemic...

But the only way I can see that happening is if there is a significant fall in the R0 that continues to fall.  Is that a reasonable assumption?  

The R0 can remain constant and we will see exponential growth to the upside.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The graph that I am watching for tends to look like an upside down of the hockey stick that signifies exponential growth, the almost flat part that touches the ice seeming hardly to do anything, then turning sharper toward handle down as momentum increases.  Or a graph that is more like a thick beaver tail look .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But the only way I can see that happening is if there is a significant fall in the R0 that continues to fall.  Is that a reasonable assumption?  

The R0 can remain constant and we will see exponential growth to the upside.  

 

 I am not understanding what you mean by bolded parts. 

Afaik the Reproduction rate must be less than 1. 

 

Link to post
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...