THIS is why we can’t have nice things!

[Corraleno]

34 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

To me, the NY data is close to conclusive that outdoor spread is limited. There were SO MANY protests. And while people were careful, they were chanting and they certainly didn't keep their masks on carefully. 

(For the record, I had no prior assumptions about this. I was really worried protests would spike our cases.) 

I was worried to begin with too, but so far there does not seem to be any evidence that outdoor activities lead to significant spread. And that has been equally true for rightwing protests as BLM protests, and for things like that crazy Memorial Day pool party in the Ozarks that hundreds of people attended — IIRC the few cases that came from that party were all traced to a bar, not the pool party itself.

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

Actually my best friend does. She and her husband are our best friends. We had lunch with them at a park right before we left. But this is the one who is having the wedding this weekend. We will probably do lunch with them again after it is over. They are also the same politically which is rare.. conservative but will in no way vote for he who shall not be named. Unfortunately, he actually told that to someone on Facebook...as the pastor of a congregation rabidly for that person, it didn't go over well.  My other friends work at a daycare also youth pastor's wife, works with high risk Hispanic elementary kids and immunocompromised, works at a Christian university. Those are my friends and to be honest, ones I've made over the last 4 years. Before that, I had no close friends just TONS of acquaintances. 

So maybe stick to those friends for now 🙂 . Not optimal, but at least a break from nothing but family. And you won't have to put up with eye rolls when you wear a mask or want o meet outside. 

 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Corraleno said:

I was worried to begin with too, but so far there does not seem to be any evidence that outdoor activities lead to significant spread. And that has been equally true for rightwing protests as BLM protests, and for things like that crazy Memorial Day pool party in the Ozarks that hundreds of people attended — IIRC the few cases that came from that party were all traced to a bar, not the pool party itself.

Yeah, there's been ample evidence that outdoor spread is close to nil. Which is why I've started dutifully taking the kids outside every day to the park, even though it's certainly not empty. It's a real relief. 

[Selkie]

10 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

Yeah, there's been ample evidence that outdoor spread is close to nil. Which is why I've started dutifully taking the kids outside every day to the park, even though it's certainly not empty. It's a real relief. 

I'm in the midwest and our area has been hit hard for the past couple months. A health department  official from the neighboring county said that many of the cases here have been traced back to outdoor gatherings and events. She specifically mentioned outdoor weddings, car shows, and ATV rallies. She said that she thinks that people who are being careful indoors are letting their guard down when they're outdoors and have contracted Covid as a result. I found that pretty interesting.

 

[Not_a_Number]

10 minutes ago, Selkie said:

I'm in the midwest and our area has been hit hard for the past couple months. A health department  official from the neighboring county said that many of the cases here have been traced back to outdoor gatherings and events. She specifically mentioned outdoor weddings, car shows, and ATV rallies. She said that she thinks that people who are being careful indoors are letting their guard down when they're outdoors and have contracted Covid as a result. I found that pretty interesting.

Oh, interesting. I suppose those are quite longterm and close contact exposures, though... still, good to remember that one isn't immune in the outdoors (we've been distancing outdoors, of course, but we're somewhat less careful.) 

Mind linking a source? I'd love to read more about it. I try to make my decisions on evidence... 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Not_a_number

[GoodGrief]

4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

In my area, cases went up after a mask mandate.  How do you explain contradictory data and facts?  

Ditto here. Case numbers up exponentially. It may have nothing to do with masks, though I personally think that when you mandate face coverings (of varying quality), people tend to be less careful about distancing.

[Bootsie]

3 hours ago, Not_a_number said:

You're in Texas, right? I imagine AC really is a problem. 

I'd also be curious how many indoor gatherings people are having. It has to spread somewhere! If people are now spending more time in personal residences because they don't feel like masking in places where it's mandated, that would make things worse for sure. 

The local health authority has about a quarter of the cases listed as "community spread--known source" and almost 3/4 of the cases listed as either source not known or type of transmission not identified.  

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, Frances said:

Do you also think tolerance, grace, and understanding should be given to individuals who are defying government mandates and public health guidelines?

I think tolerance for their views should be given; I did not say anything about behavior.  I think there should be more intelligent, questioning discussions.  I was specifically talking about discourse not particular behaviors.  

I think showing grace and mercy are always appropriate--although at times extremely challenging and difficult.  

I don't know of a specific situation to comment on of someone defying a government mandate--I would have to know the specifics to be able to comment on that.  As far as public health guidelines--that could be extremely broad--whose guidelines?  WHO?  CDC?  County health department?  At times those have conflicted.  

[Selkie]

58 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

Oh, interesting. I suppose those are quite longterm and close contact exposures, though... still, good to remember that one isn't immune in the outdoors (we've been distancing outdoors, of course, but we're somewhat less careful.) 

Mind linking a source? I'd love to read more about it. I try to make my decisions on evidence... 

I will try to find it tonight. It's been a week or more since I read it, so it might take some digging.

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, Happymomof1 said:

 

Like I said, it makes me not know how to pray. I don't want people to be reckless with people's lives. On the other hand, I don't want to pray for my friends and neighbors to get sick.

Um, why would anyone pray that people get sick?!?! I can't imagine doing that!

1 hour ago, Happymomof1 said:

Well, I was just away for the last 3 weeks camping with my husband.  I love my husband. I truly do, but I'm ready to be with other people.

Well, yeah, we all are. I wish it was safer. 

30 minutes ago, GoodGrief1 said:

Ditto here. Case numbers up exponentially. It may have nothing to do with masks, though I personally think that when you mandate face coverings (of varying quality), people tend to be less careful about distancing.

Cases or positivity rate?

[Not_a_Number]

39 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The local health authority has about a quarter of the cases listed as "community spread--known source" and almost 3/4 of the cases listed as either source not known or type of transmission not identified.  

Well, yeah. We aren't contact tracing enough. That's why I tend to look at data from countries that are more under control. 

[GoodGrief]

17 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Cases or positivity rate?

Both

[Not_a_Number]

18 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

You can have contact tracing and still not know where the spread came from. We have good contact tracing where I live, and they can't trace all of it. Basically, if you get it from work, a care facility, being in jail/prison, or a family gathering, they seem to be able to figure it out. If you get it somewhere else, they don't know. They don't know if you got it while you were at this store, that store, the beach, etc.

If you have good contract tracing and people are being quite careful, then it's not so hard to trace. That's why places like New Zealand and South Korea (and Japan, maybe?) can keep very good track of their cases. 

[Not_a_Number]

19 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

You can have contact tracing and still not know where the spread came from. We have good contact tracing where I live, and they can't trace all of it. Basically, if you get it from work, a care facility, being in jail/prison, or a family gathering, they seem to be able to figure it out. If you get it somewhere else, they don't know. They don't know if you got it while you were at this store, that store, the beach, etc.

Do you know what percent they've traced? And what the breakdown looks like? 

[Bootsie]

19 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

You can have contact tracing and still not know where the spread came from. We have good contact tracing where I live, and they can't trace all of it. Basically, if you get it from work, a care facility, being in jail/prison, or a family gathering, they seem to be able to figure it out. If you get it somewhere else, they don't know. They don't know if you got it while you were at this store, that store, the beach, etc.

This really impacts the impression left on people.  The news reports on 100 cases on a college campus or 8 cases associated with a family gathering because those are traceable and countable.  But, the fact that there were 3500 cases with no known source doesn't make the headlines.   

[Guest]

And there are also situations like my center. If someone reports they were at our site to a Covid tracer, we can tell them exactly who they were in contact with, at least to the “same group of 10” level, because we have limited our classes to that point. But the fact is, all but one of my current students is going to also be in contact at school and other activities. And probably all have family members who work, go to the store, etc. We got through summer camps in a spike without anyone coming up positive, but frankly, that is probably due as much to luck as to anything we did, because we weren’t exactly controlling our students-or faculty-after hours. 

[frogger]

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

 

Cases or positivity rate?

This was likely due to a seafood processing plant outbreak during that time when they started testing all the employees of that plant even those who were asympotomatic and presumably employees weren't masking at home with families and close contacts. No one up here does that.

 

Our contact tracers were overwhelmed not long after that and 140 more were brought online later. 

As experiments go, that one would have a lot of lurking variables. Sadly, that is why real life social experiments are hard, lurking variables and confounding factors abound. 

 

Edited to add: In all honesty, much of the increase would have happened during the non masking time as it takes a week or so to know you have it another 5+ days to get your positive results back. 

After that our cases decreased. Dhss website shows Rt on a downward trend through most of July and August.

Edited September 29, 2020 by frogger

[frogger]

1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

You can have contact tracing and still not know where the spread came from. We have good contact tracing where I live, and they can't trace all of it. Basically, if you get it from work, a care facility, being in jail/prison, or a family gathering, they seem to be able to figure it out. If you get it somewhere else, they don't know. They don't know if you got it while you were at this store, that store, the beach, etc.

This isn't arguing with you, just jumping off your train of thought from other responses.

 

I don't know that that would be a good use for contact tracing. I would think the best use would be for those who test positive to get their contacts to test and quarantine to stop future transmissions.

 

I'm not that comfortable with the whole blame thing where you get mad at people for accidently spreading germs. I'm not sure that is good for society. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

They follow-up on everyone and currently about 50% are known person-to person. A quarter is listed as "community", and that is when they aren't entirely sure.

People can be "careful" and still not know where it comes from, though. If you go to Wal-Mart and say Costco, the tracers aren't going to know where it truly came from. New Zealand can do it because it's a tiny country with very few cases. Taiwan can do different contact tracing because they have different privacy laws. They're not at all comparable.

Auckland is neither tiny nor really spread out. That's where they had the last cluster. 

The reason they have very few cases is because they've done sharp shutdowns whenever they've had a significant number. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

They follow-up on everyone and currently about 50% are known person-to person. A quarter is listed as "community", and that is when they aren't entirely sure.

People can be "careful" and still not know where it comes from, though. If you go to Wal-Mart and say Costco, the tracers aren't going to know where it truly came from. New Zealand can do it because it's a tiny country with very few cases. Taiwan can do different contact tracing because they have different privacy laws. They're not at all comparable.

I was curious what "known person-to-person" are. Like, are there any patterns? Mostly spread at home? At work? At restaurants?

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, kdsuomi said:

They don't give all the details, obviously, but they've long said most of it is at private gatherings or spread within families that live together. 

I'd be curious what the average size of private gathering where it spread is 🙂 . Not for any particular reason than curiosity... I like having a sense of that. 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, dmmetler said:

And there are also situations like my center. If someone reports they were at our site to a Covid tracer, we can tell them exactly who they were in contact with, at least to the “same group of 10” level, because we have limited our classes to that point. But the fact is, all but one of my current students is going to also be in contact at school and other activities. And probably all have family members who work, go to the store, etc. We got through summer camps in a spike without anyone coming up positive, but frankly, that is probably due as much to luck as to anything we did, because we weren’t exactly controlling our students-or faculty-after hours. 

Numbers associated with a particular location like this can be tricky.  If DS were to get COVID at work he would be counted as a case count at his university although he has not been on campus, or to a frat party.  Then if I got it from him, I would count as a second case at the university because I am on the faculty--even though I got infected at home and have not been on campus. Then if DH got infected--oh yeah, he signed up for a art history class for fun, so he is technically a student and would be counted--so three cases all counted as university cases and not one of us on campus. 

Or we have the two grad students who have a child who get ill at school and brings it home to mom an dad--both who are students at the university but who haven't been on campus in months--now two more college cases.  

Or, if a student who is at home several states away doing classes online reports being sick--there goes another case for our campus.  

I know of cases where these types of transmission have been counted as "college" related--although the cases are really work or family/household related.  Just because someone is affiliated with the university and has COVID does not mean that is where infection is occurring.   

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I know of cases where these types of transmission have been counted as "college" related--although the cases are really work or family/household related.  Just because someone is affiliated with the university and has COVID does not mean that is where infection is occurring.   

It's not surprising, because it's hard to keep track where people got infected. Having fewer cases and more robust contact-tracing would probably help. 

[frogger]

4 hours ago, Happymomof1 said:

No, you don't sound like a jerk.  With 10 hours of graduate classes, keeping up my new blog, writing newsletters for our mission organization, being part of a writer group and submitting things for publication, my time is swamped. My socialization has always been church. But yesterday, when I walked into our Sunday school room and my husband and I were the only ones masked, I wanted to walk out but there was no way to do so gracefully. The chairs were in pairs 6 feet apart, but still. It was such a small room with 12-15 of us in there. I really, really, really miss singing in choir.  I see the socially distanced choir up there. They didn't even have a special. I wouldn't have had them up there, but then again, since most of the congregation takes off their masks when they sit down is there really any difference between singing up there  or in the pew...  I HATE FEELING SO JUDGEMENTAL.  Wednesday night meal is back on. That is where I socialize with all my friends, but I won't.  I wish they would shut down the parking around the fellowship hall and put all of the tables outside. Then, I would. They are doing VBS next week. 12 kids to a class. No masks.  But again, masks are not required for elementary in the public schools here. 

So, IF I could find a time and a friend was available, they would probably not understand why I want to meet outside when everything here is back to normal. One of those friend's husband did catch it. Very mild and the rest of the family didn't get it. So really, the culture around here is that it is no big deal.  I understand why it isn't.

So yeah, I guess I'm feeling sorry for myself because church was my social outlet.  I really don't have time for much else right now.

I don't know about you but my church family IS my family. Leaving them would be like getting a divorce. I get this though. I so get this. 

I knew when I walked into my church for the first time after lock down that we would be the only ones masked. I asked my kids if they were ready for that. We have went back and forth but I'm willing to keep trying. The leadership is trying to follow rules and had outdoor services when things were partially closed again in August but many people were antgonistic to every precaution they took and they aren't going to kick people out who don't mask.  They are trying and I try not to be judgemental. I know people get their information from different sources and I also know that not everyone is capable of really analyzing sources and that doesn't mean they are evil. There are also some things that I think could have good evidence but are debatable. The thing is people can't learn from each other if they always split.  

I'm not telling you to stay or go or take a break. Those things you have to decide but only you can really answer the question, in what way am I actually worshipping God.

 

 

[frogger]

6 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

It's not surprising, because it's hard to keep track where people got infected. Having fewer cases and more robust contact-tracing would probably help. 

Why is it so important to know where people got infected? Why not focus on getting the ill out of circulation? 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, frogger said:

Why is it so important to know where people got infected? Why not focus on getting the ill out of circulation? 

Because that's how you figure out how to give people public health advice in terms of what to avoid and also you figure out what should be open and shut down. The less economic impact the better, right? As a silly example, if people are ONLY getting infected in Shake Shacks and nowhere else, then you should obviously shut the Shake Shacks and leave all the other restaurants open 😉 

[Not_a_Number]

2 hours ago, frogger said:

They are trying and I try not to be judgemental. I know people get their information from different sources and I also know that not everyone is capable of really analyzing sources and that doesn't mean they are evil. There are also some things that I think could have good evidence but are debatable. The thing is people can't learn from each other if they always split. 

I have a hard time calling anyone evil who isn't being malicious. 

However, I think a lot of what we're seeing is what has been called "the banality of evil." People who are endangering the vulnerable are following the laws. They don't mean badly. They aren't bad people; they treat their family kindly; they open doors for strangers; they pray to God. 

And yet people die due to their actions for all that. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Not_a_number

[Frances]

4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I think tolerance for their views should be given; I did not say anything about behavior.  I think there should be more intelligent, questioning discussions.  I was specifically talking about discourse not particular behaviors.  

I think showing grace and mercy are always appropriate--although at times extremely challenging and difficult.  

I don't know of a specific situation to comment on of someone defying a government mandate--I would have to know the specifics to be able to comment on that.  As far as public health guidelines--that could be extremely broad--whose guidelines?  WHO?  CDC?  County health department?  At times those have conflicted.  

I guess I assumed we were talking about behavior, as that is was the OP was discussing and that is what can actually make people safer or less safe. As for guidelines, I guess I would say local ones, as we are in the US and I’m assuming that’s all some would be willing to do. And at least in theory, they might be more reflective of the local situation.

I’m all for questioning and discussion, as long as people with views different from the mandates and guidelines aren’t unilaterally deciding they don’t have to follow them. It’s primarily about the behavior for me. 

 

[Frances]

3 hours ago, Bootsie said:

This really impacts the impression left on people.  The news reports on 100 cases on a college campus or 8 cases associated with a family gathering because those are traceable and countable.  But, the fact that there were 3500 cases with no known source doesn't make the headlines.   

Maybe not the headlines, but every time they report here on specific outbreaks, they also give info on the number of cases they have not been able to trace and are attributed to community spread, because that is a very worrying number.

[Not_a_Number]

10 minutes ago, Frances said:

Maybe not the headlines, but every time they report here on specific outbreaks, they also give info on the number of cases they have not been able to trace and are attributed to community spread, because that is a very worrying number.

What percentage are they managing to trace? Any sense of where most people are getting infected? 

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Not_a_number said:

What percentage are they managing to trace? Any sense of where most people are getting infected? 

Statewide they are unable to trace 37% to a known source, for my county it is 22% not traced to a known source. Workplace and prison outbreaks are high on the list of sources in my county. Not in my county, but in the two with large state universities where most classes are online, they have recently traced outbreaks back to student off campus parties and social gatherings, primarily Greek or sports team related ones.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Frances

[Not_a_Number]

50 minutes ago, Frances said:

Statewide they are unable to trace 37% to a known source, for my county it is 22% not traced to a known source. Workplace and prison outbreaks are high on the list of sources in my county. Not in my county, but in the two with large state universities where most classes are online, they have recently traced outbreaks back to student off campus parties and social gatherings, primarily Greek or sports team related ones.

Unsurprising, I guess -- mostly large groups indoors. 

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, Not_a_number said:

Because that's how you figure out how to give people public health advice in terms of what to avoid and also you figure out what should be open and shut down. The less economic impact the better, right? As a silly example, if people are ONLY getting infected in Shake Shacks and nowhere else, then you should obviously shut the Shake Shacks and leave all the other restaurants open 😉 

But, the issues surrounding COVID aren't like some other public health issues.  It is human contact--often with someone who doesn't know they are ill--that causes spread; knowing the location where that took place isn't really helpful.   If we know that people who ate at restaurant X got ecoli, we don't have to shut down all restaurants, only X.  

Someone feels ill on the 2nd of Sept--goes in for a test on Sept 3--waits until a week for results; the results on Sept 10 are positive and reported to health department.  On Sept 11 a contact tracer calls to see where you were on Sept 1--if someone was around you at that time they are probably already sick if they are going to get sick, but they are definitely almost through the quarantine period.  It isn't like ecoli where knowing the place of the infection is helpful in stopping further infections.  

If we track to certain locations and close those locations down, it doesn't necessarily slow down spread if the behavior is simply moved to another location.  

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Bootsie said:

But, the issues surrounding COVID aren't like some other public health issues.  It is human contact--often with someone who doesn't know they are ill--that causes spread; knowing the location where that took place isn't really helpful.   If we know that people who ate at restaurant X got ecoli, we don't have to shut down all restaurants, only X.  

Someone feels ill on the 2nd of Sept--goes in for a test on Sept 3--waits until a week for results; the results on Sept 10 are positive and reported to health department.  On Sept 11 a contact tracer calls to see where you were on Sept 1--if someone was around you at that time they are probably already sick if they are going to get sick, but they are definitely almost through the quarantine period.  It isn't like ecoli where knowing the place of the infection is helpful in stopping further infections.  

If we track to certain locations and close those locations down, it doesn't necessarily slow down spread if the behavior is simply moved to another location.  

Well, kind of. Obviously, the places themselves aren't the source of the spread like in the e.coli example. But we can also get some idea of what's more or less risky. Indoor gatherings or outdoor gatherings? Small places or big places? Places with air conditioning or not? Places where people are singing or yelling or places where people are quiet? 

We've already figured out a fair amount from the places that have caused large-ish outbreaks. It's not perfect, but it does give ideas for how to proceed. 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

I guess I assumed we were talking about behavior, as that is was the OP was discussing and that is what can actually make people safer or less safe. As for guidelines, I guess I would say local ones, as we are in the US and I’m assuming that’s all some would be willing to do. And at least in theory, they might be more reflective of the local situation.

I’m all for questioning and discussion, as long as people with views different from the mandates and guidelines aren’t unilaterally deciding they don’t have to follow them. It’s primarily about the behavior for me. 

 

There are many situations outside of COVID where people unilaterally decide not to follow public health guidelines--not receiving a flu vaccine, not vaccinating for other diseases, not putting their meat out on the counter to thaw.  If they behave that way does it mean that there can't be a discussion?  I would still choose to discuss issues, hoping to learn something about why they hold the view they hold and choose the behavior that they choose, and perhaps given them something to think about that they haven't thought about.  

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

Well, kind of. Obviously, the places themselves aren't the source of the spread like in the e.coli example. But we can also get some idea of what's more or less risky. Indoor gatherings or outdoor gatherings? Small places or big places? Places with air conditioning or not? Places where people are singing or yelling or places where people are quiet? 

We've already figured out a fair amount from the places that have caused large-ish outbreaks. It's not perfect, but it does give ideas for how to proceed. 

So, I think some of the question is how much more are we going to learn about any of that from spending a good deal of resources on contact tracing at this point?  Have we learned a lot of what we are going to know--singing and yelling are problematic; indoors is problematic, etc.  If we aren't able to glean any more information then the resources going toward contact tracing could be used in other areas.  

But we still have an issue that we have seen some things that cause large-ish outbreaks, but we have seen that same behavior in many places and many times that has not resulted in any outbreak.  

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

So, I think some of the question is how much more are we going to learn about any of that from spending a good deal of resources on contact tracing at this point?  Have we learned a lot of what we are going to know--singing and yelling are problematic; indoors is problematic, etc.  If we aren't able to glean any more information then the resources going toward contact tracing could be used in other areas.  

But we still have an issue that we have seen some things that cause large-ish outbreaks, but we have seen that same behavior in many places and many times that has not resulted in any outbreak.  

I don't think that's the main reason we contact trace... the reason we contact trace is largely to be able to quarantine people before they spread it more. However, learning more about outbreaks is certainly also nice. 

I mean, if there's no COVID in the room, it won't spread. And some people don't seem to produce as much virus.

[Bootsie]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

I don't think that's the main reason we contact trace... the reason we contact trace is largely to be able to quarantine people before they spread it more. However, learning more about outbreaks is certainly also nice. 

I mean, if there's no COVID in the room, it won't spread. And some people don't seem to produce as much virus.

If that is what we are trying to do, then we have to be able to test and get results back quickly. That isn't happening in at least some areas of the country.

I had a relative who is in public health and did similar work pre-COVID and was reassigned to COVID tracing.  Every case she had was a contact that lived in the same household.  So, her calling and saying "you were exposed..." when the person she was talking to was caring for their ill spouse.  

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Bootsie said:

If that is what we are trying to do, then we have to be able to test and get results back quickly. That isn't happening in at least some areas of the country.

I had a relative who is in public health and did similar work pre-COVID and was reassigned to COVID tracing.  Every case she had was a contact that lived in the same household.  So, her calling and saying "you were exposed..." when the person she was talking to was caring for their ill spouse.  

Yes, it would be good if we could test and get results back quickly. That's happening in NY by now. It's a real failure that it's not happening elsewhere. 

It sounds like the contact tracing your relative is doing is pretty pointless, yes. Also a failure. 

[Corraleno]

I don't know what the turnaround time is in most states, but I know that at DS's uni they are getting most results within 48 hours. Because of fast testing and aggressive contact tracing, they have gone from an average of 150-200 cases per day and a positivity rate of 6% the first week of September to a current average of about 20 cases per day and a positivity rate of less than 1%. As soon as a test comes back positive, that person is immediately isolated and all contacts are told to quarantine and come in for testing, and then their contacts are traced and tested. Unsurprisingly, they found that the main cause of spread was off-campus parties, so they seriously cracked down on parties (including suspending lots of students) and quarantined a bunch of frats, and they got it under control without shutting down and sending everyone home like many other uni's did. There's no question that aggressive testing and contact tracing can reduce the spread of infection when it's done well. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Corraleno

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I don't know what the turnaround time is in most states, but I know that at DS's uni they are getting most results within 48 hours. Because of fast testing and aggressive contact tracing, they have gone from an average of 150-200 cases per day and a positivity rate of 6% the first week of September to a current average of about 40 cases per day and a positivity rate of 1%. As soon as a test comes back positive, that person is immediately isolated and all contacts are told to quarantine and come in for testing, and then their contacts are traced and tested. Unsurprisingly, they found that the main cause of spread was off-campus parties, so they seriously cracked down on parties (including suspending lots of students) and quarantined a bunch of frats, and they got it under control without shutting down and sending everyone home like many other uni's did. There's no question that aggressive testing and contact tracing can reduce the spread of infection when it's done well. 

Oh, excellent, that's good to hear. I think some universities are really doing a good job. 

DH had an antibody test yesterday and got the result today (it was negative, unsurprisingly.) From what I hear, that's how long PCR tests take in NY as well. 

[Frances]

34 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

There are many situations outside of COVID where people unilaterally decide not to follow public health guidelines--not receiving a flu vaccine, not vaccinating for other diseases, not putting their meat out on the counter to thaw.  If they behave that way does it mean that there can't be a discussion?  I would still choose to discuss issues, hoping to learn something about why they hold the view they hold and choose the behavior that they choose, and perhaps given them something to think about that they haven't thought about.  

Of course there can be a discussion, who said there couldn’t be?

We are discussing Covid here, so that was what I was referring to when I said I’m really only concerned about behavior because others can be put at risk when some choose not to follow mandates and guidelines around masking, social distancing, gathering size and location, quarantine.

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I don't know what the turnaround time is in most states, but I know that at DS's uni they are getting most results within 48 hours. Because of fast testing and aggressive contact tracing, they have gone from an average of 150-200 cases per day and a positivity rate of 6% the first week of September to a current average of about 40 cases per day and a positivity rate of 1%. As soon as a test comes back positive, that person is immediately isolated and all contacts are told to quarantine and come in for testing, and then their contacts are traced and tested. Unsurprisingly, they found that the main cause of spread was off-campus parties, so they seriously cracked down on parties (including suspending lots of students) and quarantined a bunch of frats, and they got it under control without shutting down and sending everyone home like many other uni's did. There's no question that aggressive testing and contact tracing can reduce the spread of infection when it's done well. 

I had heard this was the case here, but when I dug into the numbers I found that there are still a number of delays.  We went from 94 active cases on Sept 16 to only 16 active cases on Sept 25.--a decrease of 78!  But there had only been 43 recoveries (and 13 new cases).  Hmm.  Shouldn't active cases now = active cases before + new case - recoveries--  that would have put us at 94 -43 +13 = 64 active cases.  How did we only have 16 active cases?  Well it had to do with delays in test results and then backfilling--We have reported no new cases since Sept 25--but the total number of positives have increased by 8.  

We have been reporting no new cases the last few days, but if you watch the total cases that we have had it has increased!  They aren't attributed to the last few days so when you keep having testing delays you can keep reporting "no new cases today!"  

[Frances]

50 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, the issues surrounding COVID aren't like some other public health issues.  It is human contact--often with someone who doesn't know they are ill--that causes spread; knowing the location where that took place isn't really helpful.   If we know that people who ate at restaurant X got ecoli, we don't have to shut down all restaurants, only X.  

Someone feels ill on the 2nd of Sept--goes in for a test on Sept 3--waits until a week for results; the results on Sept 10 are positive and reported to health department.  On Sept 11 a contact tracer calls to see where you were on Sept 1--if someone was around you at that time they are probably already sick if they are going to get sick, but they are definitely almost through the quarantine period.  It isn't like ecoli where knowing the place of the infection is helpful in stopping further infections.  

If we track to certain locations and close those locations down, it doesn't necessarily slow down spread if the behavior is simply moved to another location.  

Unless there is something about the location that needs to be remedied. When they had a small outbreak at my husband’s workplace, they pretty quickly determined it was due to lack of rules and guidelines around use of staff break rooms. They changed the rules and there hasn’t been a new outbreak. That is certainly not the only workplace outbreak I know of where there were able to pinpoint the problem and remedy it either without closing down at all or after a brief shutdown.

[Bootsie]

7 minutes ago, Frances said:

Of course there can be a discussion, who said there couldn’t be?

We are discussing Covid here, so that was what I was referring to when I said I’m really only concerned about behavior because others can be put at risk when some choose not to follow mandates and guidelines around masking, social distancing, gathering size and location, quarantine.

I took the comment of "I’m all for questioning and discussion, as long as people with views different from the mandates and guidelines aren’t unilaterally deciding they don’t have to follow them." to mean that if people chose to behave a certain way they you weren't for questioning and discussion.  Sorry if I misunderstood that.

My question was whether this logic applied to other public health guidelines that, when not followed, can put other people at risk.  COVID is not the only public health issue.  

[Frances]

44 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

So, I think some of the question is how much more are we going to learn about any of that from spending a good deal of resources on contact tracing at this point?  Have we learned a lot of what we are going to know--singing and yelling are problematic; indoors is problematic, etc.  If we aren't able to glean any more information then the resources going toward contact tracing could be used in other areas.  

But we still have an issue that we have seen some things that cause large-ish outbreaks, but we have seen that same behavior in many places and many times that has not resulted in any outbreak.  

Well there actually has to be an infected person present to cause an outbreak, so I guess I don’t understand why it’s surprising that the same behavior at two different times in two different locations has a different outcome. There is also the super spreader idea they are studying. Also, where the infected person is in the disease cycle.

If done in a timely manner, contact tracing to me still seems helpful in halting the spread. If you can catch people who aren’t sick yet or will never develop symptoms and have them quarantine before they affect others, that still seems like a good use of contact tracing.

 

[Bootsie]

8 minutes ago, Frances said:

Unless there is something about the location that needs to be remedied. When they had a small outbreak at my husband’s workplace, they pretty quickly determined it was due to lack of rules and guidelines around use of staff break rooms. They changed the rules and there hasn’t been a new outbreak. That is certainly not the only workplace outbreak I know of where there were able to pinpoint the problem and remedy it either without closing down at all or after a brief shutdown.

I am interested in how they determined the problem was in the break rooms.  What changes did they put in place?

[Frances]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

I took the comment of "I’m all for questioning and discussion, as long as people with views different from the mandates and guidelines aren’t unilaterally deciding they don’t have to follow them." to mean that if people chose to behave a certain way they you weren't for questioning and discussion.  Sorry if I misunderstood that.

My question was whether this logic applied to other public health guidelines that, when not followed, can put other people at risk.  COVID is not the only public health issue.  

I’m all for discussion. I also think people should follow the rules, even if they disagree with them, so as not to put others at risk. So if a restaurant is putting meat to thaw on a counter and breaking public health guidelines, I’m fine with discussing the issue. But I’m also fine with them facing whatever repercussions county health inspectors have the authority to level. The same with vaccinations. I’m fine with discussing  pros and cons. But I’m also fine with schools or universities not allowing students to enroll without them. Or healthcare workplaces mandating them, including the flu vaccine.

 

[Frances]

7 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I am interested in how they determined the problem was in the break rooms.  What changes did they put in place?

Since it’s a healthcare setting, I think it was fairly easy for them to trace when people from different areas that don’t work together got infected. I believe they closed some of the smaller break rooms and instituted social distancing in others. They also encouraged people to eat outside or in private areas when possible.

[Susan in TX]

On 9/27/2020 at 9:35 PM, Bootsie said:

This probably varies quite a bit from school to school  There are no fraternity houses here.  And, there is nothing keeping 21-year old's from having parties just because "college isn't open"

In my experience, college students do not "party" when they are not at college, because college is where all their friends are and they "party" with their friends.

Susan in TX