SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   How Is Covid-19 Impacting Life in Your City? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=242036)

homebucket Aug 15, 2020 3:58 PM

Quiet morning in the Ferry Building. Normally it'd be bustling by now.

https://i.imgur.com/Rn9QRhDh.jpg
https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisc...erry_building/

iheartthed Aug 15, 2020 4:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 9011494)
Quiet morning in the Ferry Building. Normally it'd be bustling by now.

https://i.imgur.com/Rn9QRhDh.jpg
https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisc...erry_building/

I thoughts those two gray haired guys were carrying skateboards at first glance. I really wish they were.

Pedestrian Aug 15, 2020 7:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9011504)
I thoughts those two gray haired guys were carrying skateboards at first glance. I really wish they were.

I thought they were too. Just across the street from there is an unofficial skateboard park (which the cops have tried to stop since the hardscape was installed but haven't been able to).

This is it:

Video Link

0214685226 Aug 15, 2020 7:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9011504)
I thoughts those two gray haired guys were carrying skateboards at first glance. I really wish they were.

Haha, same here! My first thought was they just got done "shreddin' it, bro"! Guys of this age do shred, btw. Tony Hawk, one of the most excellent shredders of all time is 52 years old!

https://youtu.be/IuqcG5nl2dU
Video Link

Yuri Aug 15, 2020 8:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9011441)
What are the rules? Do they allow indoor service?

They are restricted to a 6-hour service, clients must be sat, more space between tables, mandatory masks (which have been universally adopted by the public), hand sanitizers everywhere.

I went for a drink yesterday in one of my favourite bars nearby and I felt pretty safe. I want things to go back to normal quickly.

Pedestrian Aug 15, 2020 9:32 PM

Quote:

‘Crazy’ sales of camping gear in Bay Area as people flee to the mountains
Rusty Simmons
Aug. 15, 2020 Updated: Aug. 15, 2020 12 p.m.

With people searching for ways to get out of the house during the coronavirus pandemic, camping gear sales are going crazy.

Despite the mid-March shelter-in-place order, Sports Basement in Berkeley says it has already sold twice as many bear canisters — containers to keep food safe from the animals — this year than it did in all of 2019. REI says sales of products in its camping category are 30% to 100% higher than this time last year.

“Crazy is an accurate read,” said Paul Calandrella, REI’s general merchandising manager for camp products. “From early to mid-July, we have just been on a tear, selling literally across the category. There is nothing that is not hot right now.”

On the front porch at REI’s Berkeley location, a board lists out-of-stock items: mosquito head nets, bear canisters and toilet kits called Wag Bags. Among the products in limited supply are camp fuel, camp chairs, sleeping pads, dehydrated food, tents, coolers, stoves and water filtration equipment.

At Big 5 Sporting Goods in Emeryville, foldable outdoor chairs were gone — except for the display items. Camping fuel was sparse, tents had been picked through, and good luck getting a cooler.

Even online, the top four “essential campfire” items — three pieces of firepit hardware and a fuel-free lighter — were unavailable for pickup at Bay Area locations of Dick’s Sporting Goods. The extended reach campfire torch is available only in Pleasant Hill . . . .
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business...s-15485363.php

And up in the mountains, they are none too happy about it:

Quote:

Cabin fever meets Tahoe tension: ‘Not local? Not welcome!’
Jill Tucker and Alexei Koseff
Aug. 15, 2020 Updated: Aug. 15, 2020 11:28 a.m.

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE — If the walls are closing in but pandemic travel sounds a bit too sketchy, don’t worry, Lake Tahoe tourism honchos say. They have the answer.

“We’ll help you put your toe in the water — literally — here at Tahoe South,” according to the Lake Tahoe Visitors Bureau website. “Travel therapy is what you need.” And sure enough, throughout the summer thousands of travelers have been heeding that call and streaming to Tahoe’s hotels and rental houses for the solace and beauty of the Sierra Nevada.

But it turns out that all that travel therapy is now grinding on the nerves of some local folks.

A vocal contingent of area residents wants to rescind the invitation to visit, saying overnight and day visitors are bombarding the region, clogging roadways and leaving trash and the deadly coronavirus in their wake.

Locals across the region and other communities were planning protests Friday and over the weekend to lament the lack of enough infrastructure to handle the hordes. Beach trash bins have been overflowing and cars are parked illegally, they say. Masks and social distancing are often absent.

Yet even as concerned residents painted protest signs Friday morning, thousands of families looking to escape triple-digit temperatures across Northern California were loading their cars with bicycles and bathing suits for a weekend up at Lake Tahoe or Truckee . . . .

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...s-15485539.php

iheartthed Aug 15, 2020 9:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centropolis (Post 9009218)
it was like yeah we are in the flyover but we ALSO do not have open container laws like puritan chicago or whatever and it’s legal to drink in a car.

I wish New York would get rid of these open container laws. I thought the pandemic would wipe them out, but doesn't seem like that will happen now.

MonkeyRonin Aug 16, 2020 1:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 9011230)
30 new cases of COVID-19 in the City of Toronto on Friday. It's outrageous that 6 months in we're still reporting new cases. With a supposedly closed border, consistent messaging (masks, 2m physical distancing, WHO protocols for hand washing), free access to hospitals for all, and $2000 monthly CERB cheques this should have been over in May.

There are simply too many loopholes, exceptions to protocols being tolerated, and too many non-compliant people. This is going to go on for many many more months because Ontarians just can't get it together. This failure is an economic catastrophe. If we're still recording 30 new daily cases in the spring our governments will be tapped out. They can't keep writing cheques indefinitely. The cheques are there to buy us time yet we're the window of opportunity is being squandered.

Mayor John Tory and Premier Doug Ford: enough with your incompetence. Smarten up or step aside.


Says you as an epidemiologist? I don't think you understand how pandemics work - I'm no expert either, but pretty sure you can't just eradicate a virus in a couple months. Literally no place in the history of global pandemics has done that. Even remote, isolated New Zealand is seeing a resurgence in cases after momentarily eliminating the virus.

Fact is, we currently have under 900 active cases and are averaging <1 death per day in a jurisdiction of 15 million people. Those are very good numbers.

10023 Aug 16, 2020 6:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 9011230)
30 new cases of COVID-19 in the City of Toronto on Friday. It's outrageous that 6 months in we're still reporting new cases. With a supposedly closed border, consistent messaging (masks, 2m physical distancing, WHO protocols for hand washing), free access to hospitals for all, and $2000 monthly CERB cheques this should have been over in May.

There are simply too many loopholes, exceptions to protocols being tolerated, and too many non-compliant people. This is going to go on for many many more months because Ontarians just can't get it together. This failure is an economic catastrophe. If we're still recording 30 new daily cases in the spring our governments will be tapped out. They can't keep writing cheques indefinitely. The cheques are there to buy us time yet we're the window of opportunity is being squandered.

Mayor John Tory and Premier Doug Ford: enough with your incompetence. Smarten up or step aside.

Is this a joke? 30 cases a day in a major city and you’re upset?

homebucket Aug 16, 2020 6:17 AM

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Or being intentionally daft to bait people into saying how great Toronto is doing?

suburbanite Aug 16, 2020 9:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin (Post 9011889)
Says you as an epidemiologist? I don't think you understand how pandemics work - I'm no expert either, but pretty sure you can't just eradicate a virus in a couple months. Literally no place in the history of global pandemics has done that. Even remote, isolated New Zealand is seeing a resurgence in cases after momentarily eliminating the virus.

Fact is, we currently have under 900 active cases and are averaging <1 death per day in a jurisdiction of 15 million people. Those are very good numbers.

Why doesn't Covid understand just how hard we're trying here!

People forget that the goal at the start was "flatten the curve", not "completely eliminate a brand new virus in 4 months". the curve has been successfully flattened, and despite some friction regarding schools starting back up, it's been a pretty cohesive response from everyone in power.

dave8721 Aug 17, 2020 3:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbanite (Post 9012451)
Why doesn't Covid understand just how hard we're trying here!

People forget that the goal at the start was "flatten the curve", not "completely eliminate a brand new virus in 4 months". the curve has been successfully flattened, and despite some friction regarding schools starting back up, it's been a pretty cohesive response from everyone in power.

Most of the (industrialized) world has been able to almost "completely eliminate a brand new virus in 4 months" though. With our "flattened" curve here in Miami, we have had 250k cases and 4000 dead and we are not even considered one of the worst hit in the U.S.

chris08876 Aug 20, 2020 2:16 AM

See which NYC neighborhoods have the highest rates of COVID antibodies

https://imgs.6sqft.com/wp-content/up...7851267908.png

Quote:

The city on Tuesday released the results for roughly 1.5 million coronavirus antibody tests conducted since mid-April. The new data confirms earlier reports that the virus has hit people of color and low-income communities harder than more well-off neighborhoods in New York City. At 33 percent, the Bronx saw the highest rate of people who tested positive for COVID-19; in Manhattan, 19 percent of antibody tests were positive. A new map and table released by the city’s health department break down antibody testing rates by ZIP code, age, borough, sex, and neighborhood poverty.
https://imgs.6sqft.com/wp-content/up...gh-postive.png

Quote:

The new data showed Queens had the second-highest percent positive of antibodies at 28.2 percent, followed by Brooklyn at 27.9 percent, Staten Island at 20.1 percent, and Manhattan at 19 percent. Overall, more than 27 percent of those tested citywide had coronavirus antibodies.

In the ZIP code 11368, which encompasses the Queens neighborhood of Corona, 51.6 percent of over 25,500 antibody tests conducted came back positive, the highest rate in the city. The neighborhood has lost over 400 people from the virus.

The New York Times reported that this particular area in Queens is not only home to many essential workers, but has a high rate of “household crowding,” which leads to a faster spread of the virus.

Other hard-hit neighborhoods include Borough Park, at 46.8 percent positive, East Elmhurst at 45.7 percent, and 39.3 percent in Highbridge in the Bronx. The neighborhood with the lowest rate of positive antibody tests was a sliver of Long Island City, which saw a positive rate of 12.4 percent, out of just over 1,500 tests conducted.

The lowest rates in Manhattan, which had the lowest overall rate of positive antibodies, were found on the Upper East Side and Upper West, both at 12.6 percent positive. No neighborhoods south of Harlem saw rates higher than 20 percent. In the ZIP code 10036, which includes Midtown West, 19.6 percent of those tested had antibodies.

Some researchers say those with COVID antibodies are likely protected from getting the virus again or as severely, possibly offering some relief to those neighborhoods hardest hit early on in the crisis. But there are still too many unknowns, and the city wants everyone, antibodies or not, to consider themselves at risk for infection.
=====================
1. Courtesy of NYC Health Department
2. 6sqft

chris08876 Aug 20, 2020 2:18 AM

Here is the interactive map data: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/...a-testing.page

1. Antibody Testing by ZIP Code of Residence
2. Antibody Testing Rates
3. Antibody Tests
4. Virus (Diagnostic) Tests (People tested / Percent of people with positive results

bnk Aug 20, 2020 7:07 PM

https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus...o-kidding.html

Cuomo’s coronavirus rules: No dancing, no cornhole, no karaoke, no kidding

syracuse ^ | 08/20/2020 | Michelle Breidenbach

There is no dancing allowed in New York’s bars and restaurants, even at a wedding reception, according to the New York State Liquor Authority.
To control the spread of the coronavirus, Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s liquor authority has also specifically banned darts, pool, cornhole, karaoke and exotic dancing.




“I have to say: Who’s asking the why?” Palladino said. “Where are these regulations coming from? We know that our cases are declining, yet we continue to come out with more and more regulations, putting a tourniquet on businesses.”

...

suburbanite Aug 20, 2020 7:23 PM

Is it not obvious that if you want your businesses to stay open long-term, that you don't make them a hotbed of transmission like Texas and Arizona did with a complete free-for-all opening? Would people/business owners prefer a few weeks or a month of business as usual and then complete shutdown again?

chris08876 Aug 20, 2020 7:59 PM

IDK when this was filmed, looks like April or maybe March prior to the pandemic really going in full swing, but kinda makes one miss the hustle and bustle.

Make full screen, make 4k or 8k, and use mouse to move around.


Video Link

the urban politician Aug 20, 2020 8:29 PM

^ Nice find!

We will be back to that some day, and even better :tup:

someone123 Aug 20, 2020 9:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9012045)
Is this a joke? 30 cases a day in a major city and you’re upset?

Here in Vancouver and BC (which is mostly metro Vancouver cases) we got down to around 5-10 cases per day at the low point and now it's gone up to 80 per day. But cases have shifted to lower risk demographics. The province has 5 million people and so far in August we've had around 5 deaths and hospitalizations. It's possible we've seen more drug overdose deaths than covid deaths here during the pandemic.

We have lots of people pulling their hair out about irresponsible "kids" (i.e. 20 and 30 somethings) partying and ruining it for everyone. We are nowhere near 100% hospital utilization. Nobody really knows the personal details of the party crowd, and the identified cases get isolated, but many people assume social interaction -> covid cases -> deaths (except BLM protests). There's a lot of moralizing, this being Canada.

80% of our deaths were in care homes but the dominant narrative seems to be that the risk is even across the population (push this and people will tell you that deaths in younger people are lower but we just don't know what else might happen to them in the long run).

We're still not doing randomized testing from what I can tell so the numbers are just based on who shows up to be tested and contact tracing. PCR seems somewhat available and antibody or T-cell screening less so.

The dominant attitude seems to be that we should be in semi-lockdown indefinitely. School reopenings are borderline and controversial. Few people seem to talk about the cost of lockdown policies or the endgame, which I guess is assumed to be that a vaccine will allow us to reopen. Policy seems to have gradually shifted from keeping hospital utilization under 100% to getting cases down as low as possible.

It feels like we did pretty well here around March-April, maybe partly by accident (with us being farther from NYC and Europe), but it seems like May-August has been mostly a holding pattern.

edale Aug 20, 2020 9:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 9017114)
Here in Vancouver and BC (which is mostly metro Vancouver cases) we got down to around 5-10 cases per day at the low point and now it's gone up to 80 per day. But cases have shifted to lower risk demographics. The province has 5 million people and so far in August we've had around 5 deaths and hospitalizations. It's possible we've seen more drug overdose deaths than covid deaths here during the pandemic.

I'm far from being an anti-masker or someone who thinks the virus is a hoax or whatever, but doesn't this highlighted stat make the extreme lockdowns seem a bit ridiculous to you? The entire province is having their lives put on hold, the government is writing everyone $2000 checks each month, the economy is tanking all to save...5 lives? I get that it's important to not turn into the shit show that some of the US became/is becoming, but what is the end goal here? At what point does life return to some semblance of normalcy? Is the plan to stay in this holding pattern until a vaccine is developed? What if a vaccine is ineffective or takes a couple years to get right--is BC prepared to stay stuck at home til 2024 if that's what it takes?

SIGSEGV Aug 20, 2020 9:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale (Post 9017155)
I'm far from being an anti-masker or someone who thinks the virus is a hoax or whatever, but doesn't this highlighted stat make the extreme lockdowns seem a bit ridiculous to you? The entire province is having their lives put on hold, the government is writing everyone $2000 checks each month, the economy is tanking all to save...5 lives? I get that it's important to not turn into the shit show that some of the US became/is becoming, but what is the end goal here? At what point does life return to some semblance of normalcy? Is the plan to stay in this holding pattern until a vaccine is developed? What if a vaccine is ineffective or takes a couple years to get right--is BC prepared to stay stuck at home til 2024 if that's what it takes?

"Why am I paying so much for this medicine? I don't even feel sick anymore!"

someone123 Aug 20, 2020 9:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale (Post 9017155)
I'm far from being an anti-masker or someone who thinks the virus is a hoax or whatever, but doesn't this highlighted stat make the extreme lockdowns seem a bit ridiculous to you? The entire province is having their lives put on hold, the government is writing everyone $2000 checks each month, the economy is tanking all to save...5 lives? I get that it's important to not turn into the shit show that some of the US became/is becoming, but what is the end goal here? At what point does life return to some semblance of normalcy? Is the plan to stay in this holding pattern until a vaccine is developed? What if a vaccine is ineffective or takes a couple years to get right--is BC prepared to stay stuck at home til 2024 if that's what it takes?

I think you are right to point out that there's no clear endgame to this policy. Why would we set mitigation policies such that we get 5 in hospital instead of a higher volume, with most people recovering fine and developing immunity?

In BC we actually had a problem of low hospital utilization. Many were bumped from hospitals and then the covid patients did not show up in sufficient number to bring up utilization. So we simply lost out on hospital use (surgeries rescheduled and so on). That will have a cost in health and lives.

The key observation is that until there is a vaccine it doesn't matter much what we do to curb infections. Our options are some mix of being locked down and getting covid. I don't think the costs of the lockdown are being fully accounted for nor do I think there is much appreciation for the effect the lockdown and government and media messaging has on behaviour (e.g. some people say behaviour would be the same no matter what).

I think we will have a vaccine in 2021, not 2024, but I am not sure a ~12 month slow burn or mix of lockdowns would have been worth it instead of just living normally while the high-risk demographic alone does a lockdown.

I don't think it's quite true that the point of the lockdown was to save 5 lives. It saved lives equivalent to the difference between the deaths we saw and what the deaths would have been without a lockdown. Potentially thousands of deaths.

It's worth pointing out however that early modeling predicted vastly more deaths than manifested even in places with less severe lockdowns yet authorities seem to be very conservative in moving to more relaxed policies, and people are not changing their behaviour much. If people can go from talking about 3-7% fatality rates to 0.3% without much changing behaviour or policy-wise are we rationally balancing costs and benefits?

Personally I haven't been out to a restaurant in 6 months or so now. Not sure that is rational. I am in my 30's with no health conditions. Yet it does not seem like a good proposition if I have to wear a mask to go out, register my name, then maybe get asked to isolate for 14 days if there was simply another infected person somewhere in the restaurant, etc. That is the current protocol.

Right now in Canada it doesn't seem like testing cuts down on the 14-day window. In Nova Scotia they are saying returning out-of-province students need to isolate for 14 days AND test. There's no mention of shortening the isolation period after negative results.

I suspect part of what's happening is lots of people are scared of liability or blame now and that's driving decisions more than anything else.

edale Aug 20, 2020 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 9017187)
I think you are right to point out that there's no clear endgame to this policy. Why would we set mitigation policies such that we get 5 in hospital instead of a higher volume, with most people recovering fine and developing immunity?

In BC we actually had a problem of low hospital utilization. Many were bumped from hospitals and then the covid patients did not show up in sufficient number to bring up utilization. So we simply lost out on hospital use (surgeries rescheduled and so on). That will have a cost in health and lives.

The key observation is that until there is a vaccine it doesn't matter much what we do to curb infections. Our options are some mix of being locked down and getting covid. I don't think the costs of the lockdown are being fully accounted for nor do I think there is much appreciation for the effect the lockdown and government and media messaging has on behaviour (e.g. some people say behaviour would be the same no matter what).

I think we will have a vaccine in 2021, not 2024, but I am not sure a ~12 month slow burn or mix of lockdowns would have been worth it instead of just living normally while the high-risk demographic alone does a lockdown.

I don't think it's quite true that the point of the lockdown was to save 5 lives. It saved lives equivalent to the difference between the deaths we saw and what the deaths would have been without a lockdown. Potentially thousands of deaths.

It's worth pointing out however that early modeling predicted vastly more deaths than manifested even in places with less severe lockdowns yet authorities seem to be very conservative in moving to more relaxed policies, and people are not changing their behaviour much. If people can go from talking about 3-7% fatality rates to 0.3% without much changing behaviour or policy-wise are we rationally balancing costs and benefits?

Personally I haven't been out to a restaurant in 6 months or so now. Not sure that is rational. I am in my 30's with no health conditions. Yet it does not seem like a good proposition if I have to wear a mask to go out, register my name, then maybe get asked to isolate for 14 days if there was simply another infected person somewhere in the restaurant, etc.

I agree with basically all of this. I was a bit hyperbolic in my initial post, but the lack of an endgame has been frustrating for me recently. Last weekend I had my first meal at a restaurant (outside) since the beginning of March. I've only hung out with the same 4 people since that time, too. Haven't seen family as they live out of state. Haven't gone on a date. I mean these things aren't huge deals, but I don't think it's unreasonable to start asking ok, what's the goal here? At first it was to flatten the curve and not overwhelm our healthcare system, but I don't think I ever really heard messaging about what happens after that. Idk, just more or less venting general frustrations. I hear people here saying "if we all just quarantined and social distanced, we could have this behind us and life would be back to normal." That's more or less what happened in Canada and Australia, and both countries are still experiencing lockdowns.

LA21st Aug 20, 2020 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 9017021)
IDK when this was filmed, looks like April or maybe March prior to the pandemic really going in full swing, but kinda makes one miss the hustle and bustle.

Make full screen, make 4k or 8k, and use mouse to move around.


Video Link

I was in West LA today, it's a ghost town compared to usual times.

someone123 Aug 20, 2020 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale (Post 9017202)
I agree with basically all of this. I was a bit hyperbolic in my initial post, but the lack of an endgame has been frustrating for me recently. Last weekend I had my first meal at a restaurant (outside) since the beginning of March. I've only hung out with the same 4 people since that time, too. Haven't seen family as they live out of state. Haven't gone on a date. I mean these things aren't huge deals, but I don't think it's unreasonable to start asking ok, what's the goal here? At first it was to flatten the curve and not overwhelm our healthcare system, but I don't think I ever really heard messaging about what happens after that. Idk, just more or less venting general frustrations. I hear people here saying "if we all just quarantined and social distanced, we could have this behind us and life would be back to normal." That's more or less what happened in Canada and Australia, and both countries are still experiencing lockdowns.

Yes, the idea that covid will be eradicated through lockdown is a fantasy. I think in some ways countries like New Zealand are at a disadvantage now because they have acquired almost no immunity, unlike countries like Sweden. Some American states that failed to bring cases under control are now seeing them drop off anyway; I suspect that's due to increased immunity.

People will point out that Sweden had a relatively large number of deaths but their absolute number of deaths was low and the people who died mostly had a low life expectancy. The direct covid deaths have had almost no impact on life expectancy there (I worked it out based on life expectancy by age and it's on the order of days of life expectancy lost). Sweden has a population of 10 million and as of August 18, 27 people under age 40 have died there. This is remarkable yet it's hard to get most Canadians to admit that this has implications for how covid should be handled (i.e. maybe society-wide one-size-fits-all policies are not the way to go).

I think a lot of the enjoyable stuff that has been cut out during the pandemic like events and dates and visits with family is what makes life worth living. I don't think it is rational to live in purgatory for 1-2% of your expected lifespan to avoid a 0.2% chance of dying.

I understand why authorities here locked down in March when less was known about the virus but I don't think we have pivoted in a useful way as more information has become available, particularly during the May to August period. It feels like we are stuck in May, at least here in BC.

mhays Aug 20, 2020 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale (Post 9017155)
I'm far from being an anti-masker or someone who thinks the virus is a hoax or whatever, but doesn't this highlighted stat make the extreme lockdowns seem a bit ridiculous to you? The entire province is having their lives put on hold, the government is writing everyone $2000 checks each month, the economy is tanking all to save...5 lives?

Five lives is the deaths WITH lockdowns.

The number WITHOUT lockdowns would be dramatically higher.

homebucket Aug 20, 2020 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 9017269)
Five lives is the deaths WITH lockdowns.

The number WITHOUT lockdowns would be dramatically higher.

There does seem to be a fundamental lack of understanding here. Not sure if Public Health departments have been doing a poor job of properly educating the public. But basically it's not just about "five deaths". For people who get infected, it's not just either death or you're all good. There's growing data that a significant percentage of survivors, including those that are younger and previously healthy, can suffer severe chronic health conditions afterwards. There are professional athletes that have had COVID and have not been able to return to play due to lingering heart complications. Sure, if you survive COVID, which is likely, that's great, but I wouldn't want to be saddled with a chronic heart condition the rest of my life either, especially when I was previously just fine.

someone123 Aug 20, 2020 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 9017313)
Sure, if you survive COVID, which is likely, that's great, but I wouldn't want to be saddled with a chronic heart condition the rest of my life either, especially when I was previously just fine.

Where's the data?

When you look at large populations, there are typically outliers in medical outcomes, unlucky people who suffer dangerous or deadly effects. It does not make sense to craft public health policy around these anecdotes or corner cases. I think if anything around here there's been a media bias toward promoting the idea that kids are at risk of these rare Kawasaki disease like conditions, etc. It's telling that when the media talk about children they tend to switch gears and rely on anecdotes. This is fear-based reporting. Great for ad revenues, bad basis for public policy.

We are many months into the pandemic now and we can look at the data from countries that followed different policies. For example Sweden kept daycares and schools open and they had a total of 1 death under age 20 (source). With data like that, it's clear that closing down schools would not have been in the best interests of young children. Yet many schools in North America remain closed. Children will pay the cost for that in terms of delayed education and increased abuse.

mhays Aug 21, 2020 12:23 AM

You think closing schools is about protecting kids? This thread is one misconception after another.

Closing schools is mostly about protecting families, teachers, and societal infection rates overall. Especially since evidence is mounting that kids are extremely efficient Covid spreaders.

homebucket Aug 21, 2020 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 9017331)
Where's the data?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2768915

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/o...t-disease.html

https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/27/...-heart-damage/

https://www.pennmedicine.org/updates...-heart-disease

Yeah, I'd like my heart to remain functional and not equivalent to someone 60 years older than I.

homebucket Aug 21, 2020 12:57 AM

Quote:

At the Heart of It: Cardiac Inflammation the Next Virus Hurdle for College Leaders
Of all the hurdles impeding a 2020 college football season, there is one roadblock that has gone mostly overshadowed—the heart.

ROSS DELLENGERUPDATED:AUG 9, 2020ORIGINAL:AUG 9, 2020

Dr. Matthew Martinez has studied so many images of a beating heart that he couldn’t possibly count them. Maybe 500,000. Maybe 1 million. As a non-invasive cardiologist, his job revolves around the constant evaluation of pictures of the heart.

He knows what a strong, healthy heart looks like. He knows what a poor, struggling heart looks like. And he knows what a heart looks like after COVID-19’s tentacles have reached the most vital organ in the human body. “This virus,” he says, “seems to have an affinity for causing damage to the heart.”

In a small percentage of infected patients, COVID-19 leaves behind troubling scars in the throbbing muscle within their chests, known as myocarditis. The virus directly invades the heart muscle, weakening and damaging its cells, through blood clots and inflammatory responses to viral infection. Earlier during the pandemic, doctors only associated the condition with severe and, oftentimes, hospitalized COVID victims, usually elderly patients or those with underlying health problems.

Lately, physicians are identifying the condition in young, healthy Americans — including athletes. “The last month or two, even asymptomatic young people are developing myocardial injury,” Martinez says.
https://www.si.com/college/2020/08/0...ditis-concerns

xzmattzx Aug 21, 2020 4:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 9017114)
Here in Vancouver and BC (which is mostly metro Vancouver cases) we got down to around 5-10 cases per day at the low point and now it's gone up to 80 per day. But cases have shifted to lower risk demographics. The province has 5 million people and so far in August we've had around 5 deaths and hospitalizations. It's possible we've seen more drug overdose deaths than covid deaths here during the pandemic.

We have lots of people pulling their hair out about irresponsible "kids" (i.e. 20 and 30 somethings) partying and ruining it for everyone. We are nowhere near 100% hospital utilization. Nobody really knows the personal details of the party crowd, and the identified cases get isolated, but many people assume social interaction -> covid cases -> deaths (except BLM protests). There's a lot of moralizing, this being Canada.

80% of our deaths were in care homes but the dominant narrative seems to be that the risk is even across the population (push this and people will tell you that deaths in younger people are lower but we just don't know what else might happen to them in the long run).

We're still not doing randomized testing from what I can tell so the numbers are just based on who shows up to be tested and contact tracing. PCR seems somewhat available and antibody or T-cell screening less so.

The dominant attitude seems to be that we should be in semi-lockdown indefinitely. School reopenings are borderline and controversial. Few people seem to talk about the cost of lockdown policies or the endgame, which I guess is assumed to be that a vaccine will allow us to reopen. Policy seems to have gradually shifted from keeping hospital utilization under 100% to getting cases down as low as possible.

It feels like we did pretty well here around March-April, maybe partly by accident (with us being farther from NYC and Europe), but it seems like May-August has been mostly a holding pattern.

Excellent post. So much of this seems true in the United States, and more local for me here in Delaware.

You are right, the goal or narrative has switched from flattening the curve to make sure hospital beds were available, to minimizing cases as much as possible. Everyone knew back in March and April that cases would go up when the economy got started again, but now people are forgetting that.

Like in British Columbia, most new cases in the United States are in younger people, who are supposed to keep the economy afloat while older people continue to shelter in place (whether or not this has been expressly stated). Deaths and hospitalizations have largely remained relatively low, even while positive cases surged. The downside is the possible cardiac residual effects. The upside is the potential antibodies and herd immunity developed.

School openings have been controversial. It has largely been teachers versus parents here. The parents want actual schooling, having not really gotten any schooling since mid-March. The teachers want to protect themselves. There's not been much consideration given to the students themselves. As a youth sports coach, most of the children I interact with are actually getting pretty desperate to go back to school. I can't believe I'm hearing it, because when I was a kid, I would've been happy to have a 6-month summer. But these kids can feel that they are not getting smarter (and therefore not maturing), and there are clear long-term mental health effects coming into play.

Things were going well here from Easter to Memorial Day (end of May) and into June. From mid-June until now it has been a holding pattern where regulations have neither gotten looser or gotten stricter.

I can't remember what I read, because it was a few days ago, but I think Wilmington or Delaware actually has had more overdose deaths than coronavirus deaths. I will have to look for that. Wherever it was, drug overdoses have exceeded coronavirus deaths. I also saw a report indicating that domestic violence has indeed skyrocketed since March.

All of this tells me that we have to avoid the two extremes. We can't stay locked down forever and force people into a year of isolation or constraint. The human brain will eventually reject that and ignore policies in place. At the same time, we cannot pretend that nothing ever happened, and that everything should be back to normal.

Here in Delaware, with a Democratic governor, I think we have done well in finding the best of both worlds. Early on things were tough here. There was a quarantine in place, and all businesses were closed, and everything like that. But I think an element of reasoning was included in restrictions as the economy opened back up. So, while we are being aggressive in trying to keep our positive cases down, much like New York or Massachusetts and unlike Florida or Arizona, there is no arbitrary law about needing to order food when you're in a bar, as if the coronavirus won't spread because you have food on the table, and the quarantine was lifted on June 1 and there has been no talk of reinstating it. It has provided a good balance of determination and vigilance with freedom and normalcy. That makes it easier for people to follow the rules still in place, because they get the sense that things are getting better.

accord1999 Aug 21, 2020 4:10 AM

Other viral infections impact the heart as well, such as:

Quote:

Many viruses are commonly associated with myocarditis, including the viruses that cause the common cold (adenovirus); COVID-19; hepatitis B and C; parvovirus, which causes a mild rash, usually in children (fifth disease); and herpes simplex virus.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/syc-20352539

And H1N1:

Quote:

Conclusions: These observations emphasize the high incidence of cardiac dysfunction in patients with H1N1 influenza infections.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23566732/

dave8721 Aug 21, 2020 5:08 AM

Florida passed 10k deaths yesterday (British Columbia has had 200 to compare to a previous poster). On a per capita basis still less than 1/4 of NJ though.

Pedestrian Aug 21, 2020 7:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by accord1999 (Post 9017565)
Other viral infections impact the heart as well, such as:

That is certainly true, however:

Quote:

Recognizing COVID-19–related myocarditis: The possible pathophysiology and proposed guideline for diagnosis and management
Bhurint Siripanthong, BA(Cantab),∗ Saman Nazarian, MD, PhD, FHRS,† Daniele Muser, MD,† Rajat Deo, MD, MTR,† Pasquale Santangeli, MD, PhD,† Mohammed Y. Khanji, MBBCh, MRCP, PhD,‡§ Leslie T. Cooper, Jr., MD,# and C. Anwar A. Chahal, MBChB, MRCP, PhD†¶‖∗

ABSTRACT

Human coronavirus-associated myocarditis is known, and a number of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19)–related myocarditis cases have been reported. The pathophysiology of COVID-19–related myocarditis is thought to be a combination of direct viral injury and cardiac damage due to the host’s immune response. COVID-19 myocarditis diagnosis should be guided by insights from previous coronavirus and other myocarditis experience. The clinical findings include changes in electrocardiogram and cardiac biomarkers, and impaired cardiac function. When cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is not feasible, cardiac computed tomographic angiography with delayed myocardial imaging may serve to exclude significant coronary artery disease and identify myocardial inflammatory patterns. Because many COVID-19 patients have cardiovascular comorbidities, myocardial infarction should be considered. If the diagnosis remains uncertain, an endomyocardial biopsy may help identify active cardiac infection through viral genome amplification and possibly refine the treatment risks of systemic immunosuppression. Arrhythmias are not uncommon in COVID-19 patients, but the pathophysiology is still speculative. Nevertheless, clinicians should be vigilant to provide prompt monitoring and treatment. The long-term impact of COVID-19 myocarditis, including the majority of mild cases, remains unknown.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199677/

The reason myocarditis is somewhat nonspecific in viral illness is the role played by the host immune response and not just the virus itself. However the thing of most concern with COVID is we don't yet, and can't because the disease is so new, know about the long term sequelae in this illness. Will these patients have a higher rate of heart failure and other complications down the road? Do they need long term monitoring?

Pedestrian Aug 21, 2020 7:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 9017331)
Where's the data?

Quote:

COVID-19 in children and adolescents in Europe: a multinational, multicentre cohort study

Florian GötzingerMD, Begoña Santiago-GarcíaPhD et. al.

Background

To date, few data on paediatric COVID-19 have been published, and most reports originate from China. This study aimed to capture key data on children and adolescents with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection across Europe to inform physicians and health-care service planning during the ongoing pandemic.

Methods

This multicentre cohort study involved 82 participating health-care institutions across 25 European countries, using a well established research network—the Paediatric Tuberculosis Network European Trials Group (ptbnet)—that mainly comprises paediatric infectious diseases specialists and paediatric pulmonologists. We included all individuals aged 18 years or younger with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, detected at any anatomical site by RT-PCR, between April 1 and April 24, 2020, during the initial peak of the European COVID-19 pandemic. We explored factors associated with need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission and initiation of drug treatment for COVID-19 using univariable analysis, and applied multivariable logistic regression with backwards stepwise analysis to further explore those factors significantly associated with ICU admission.

Findings

582 individuals with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included, with a median age of 5·0 years (IQR 0·5–12·0) and a sex ratio of 1·15 males per female. 145 (25%) had pre-existing medical conditions. 363 (62%) individuals were admitted to hospital. 48 (8%) individuals required ICU admission, 25 (4%) mechanical ventilation (median duration 7 days, IQR 2–11, range 1–34), 19 (3%) inotropic support, and one (<1%) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Significant risk factors for requiring ICU admission in multivariable analyses were being younger than 1 month (odds ratio 5·06, 95% CI 1·72–14·87; p=0·0035), male sex (2·12, 1·06–4·21; p=0·033), pre-existing medical conditions (3·27, 1·67–6·42; p=0·0015), and presence of lower respiratory tract infection signs or symptoms at presentation (10·46, 5·16–21·23; p<0·0001). The most frequently used drug with antiviral activity was hydroxychloroquine (40 [7%] patients), followed by remdesivir (17 [3%] patients), lopinavir–ritonavir (six [1%] patients), and oseltamivir (three [1%] patients). Immunomodulatory medication used included corticosteroids (22 [4%] patients), intravenous immunoglobulin (seven [1%] patients), tocilizumab (four [1%] patients), anakinra (three [1%] patients), and siltuximab (one [<1%] patient). Four children died (case-fatality rate 0·69%, 95% CI 0·20–1·82); at study end, the remaining 578 were alive and only 25 (4%) were still symptomatic or requiring respiratory support.

Interpretation

COVID-19 is generally a mild disease in children, including infants. However, a small proportion develop severe disease requiring ICU admission and prolonged ventilation, although fatal outcome is overall rare. The data also reflect the current uncertainties regarding specific treatment options, highlighting that additional data on antiviral and immunomodulatory drugs are urgently needed.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...52464220301772

Pedestrian Aug 21, 2020 8:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 9017187)
I think you are right to point out that there's no clear endgame to this policy. Why would we set mitigation policies such that we get 5 in hospital instead of a higher volume, with most people recovering fine and developing immunity?

There is a clear endgame and it should become much clearer over the next several months. 32 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are in human trials and 8 are in phase 3 trials (each being given to as many as 30,000 test volunteers):

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...995664/enhance
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e-tracker.html

The leading vaccine candidates in the West come from Oxford/Astrazeneca, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer/BioNTech. Others among the 8 are in Russia and China.

All evidence indicates that one and probably more of these vaccines will be approved by the FDA in the US before the end of 2020 (conspiracy theorists are already suggesting it could happen before the November 3 election). It will likely take another several months to manufacture and administer enough doses to vaccinate most of the willing populations in North America even though the US government has already contracted to purchase hundreds of millions of doses of the leading western candidates:

US cuts $1.95 billion deal with Pfizer for 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine

Trump says U.S. has reached deal with Moderna for 100 million doses of coronavirus vaccine

U.S. secures 300 million doses of potential AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine

That's 500 million doses. The population of the US is less than 400 million so enough to vaccinate all Americans has been purchased and is already being manufactured, assuming all 3 vaccines work. If only one works, we will have the amount of that one at least. One hopes Canada is doing something similar. But the point here is we are already making vaccine at the fastest rate possible. and should know by Christmas which one(s) work and have them ready to provide at least to those most at risk. In the ensuing months, we should be able to vaccinate the rest of the population, say by late Spring.

That may be why several large companies such as Facebook and Salesforce.com have told their workers who are working at home they plan to continue that until next June or July. By then, everyone who is willing to be should be vaccinated and life should be returning to normal if largely normal (it's my own opinion that the economic recovery will take a while longer).

So the point here is that we need to continue measures to avoid infecting as many people as possible for just 4 or 5 more months. That goes for those at most risk and for others because those others can infect the ones at risk. Just today, a study result was released showing that school aged children and adolescents can carry a viral burden--and spread it--higher even than very sick adults. Taking a fairly conservative estimate of the mortality rate of the disease, if we do not do this we can see the death of 100,000 or several hundreds of thousands who don't need to die because in just a few months they can be vaccinated and survive this disease.

someone123 Aug 21, 2020 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 9017393)

Did you read these? I don't have time to read them all (a list of links is not a good argument supported by data), but here's a summary of the first one:

- One study was 39 autopsies of people who died from covid and 100 who recovered.
- They noticed heart involvement in many recovered patients but there's no discussion of the true health impact and there's no control or context given. Does this damage persist? Is it different from what happens with other infections that we know people are at risk of and recover from, and that we don't implement lockdowns for?
- The authors call for more study and data, i.e. this is not information that by itself can usefully guide public policy decisions or individual decisions.

Unfortunately we will have to take risks in life and make decisions with incomplete data. We cannot react in a reliable way that improves our standard of living based on fears about poorly understood potential future effects.

dc_denizen Aug 21, 2020 6:36 PM

NEWS FLASH

In Sweden, where they did and continue not to social distance, where they did not wear masks, where they let the pandemic play out, where schools are open, the same amount of people have died, per capita, as in the US. Cases in Sweden are miniscule, per capita at the same levels as states that were hard-hit early on like NY and CT.

someone123 Aug 21, 2020 6:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9017660)
All evidence indicates that one and probably more of these vaccines will be approved by the FDA in the US before the end of 2020 (conspiracy theorists are already suggesting it could happen before the November 3 election). It will likely take another several months to manufacture and administer enough doses to vaccinate most of the willing populations in North America even though the US government has already contracted to purchase hundreds of millions of doses of the leading western candidates

Yes, this is true. There might be a vaccine available as early as the fall. Maybe it will take until 2021. I think chances are good that a vaccine will be available around North America around that time period.

Let's suppose the best-case scenario is true and everybody in the United States who wants to be vaccinated can get vaccinated in October before the election and the vaccine works perfectly, instantly reducing covid risk to 0.

People will have spent March-October in partial lockdown, about 8 months. The US life expectancy is about 78.5 years. So the average American will have spent 0.8% of their lifespan during this period. Note that some older people will have spent 20% or 40% of their remaining life expectancy in lockdown; the ones at highest risk of death are giving up the largest percentage of their remaining life in the strictest isolation.

The fatality rate for under 40's is something like 0.2%, with the rate being lower for people without health problems and for those under 20. Actually the difference in mortality is even lower because some people are still getting covid despite the measures happening right now.

Is it rational for households made up of people age 40 and under to lock themselves up for 0.8% of their life to avoid a 0.2% or maybe 0.1% risk of death plus the risks of other health impacts (which are probably not multiple times costlier than the risk of death)?

Can authorities answer this question? No, because it depends on how much people care about the covid measures they take. The price of not going to the theatre or to a restaurant depends on the value to the individual. But I'd say it's far from being a clear win.

homebucket Aug 21, 2020 6:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 9018218)
Did you read these? I don't have time to read them all (a list of links is not a good argument supported by data), but here's a summary of the first one:

- One study was 39 autopsies of people who died from covid and 100 who recovered.
- They noticed heart involvement in many recovered patients but there's no discussion of the true health impact and there's no control or context given. Does this damage persist? Is it different from what happens with other infections that we know people are at risk of and recover from, and that we don't implement lockdowns for?
- The authors call for more study and data, i.e. this is not information that by itself can usefully guide public policy decisions or individual decisions.

Unfortunately we will have to take risks in life and make decisions with incomplete data. We cannot react in a reliable way that improves our standard of living based on fears about poorly understood potential future effects.

Yes I did. I said there was growing data. You asked for proof, and I provided it. I never said it was complete data. As I said before, the risk of chronic heart disease and the complications that come along with it is enough for me to support continuing of phase 2/3 lockdowns.

someone123 Aug 21, 2020 6:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 9018238)
Yes I did. I said there was growing data. You asked for proof, and I provided it. I never said it was complete data. As I said before, the risk of chronic heart disease and the complications that come along with it is enough for me to support continuing of phase 2/3 lockdowns.

I guess. I disagree, and I think there is a heavy burden of proof on the pro-lockdown crowd to prove why a continued widespread and involuntary lockdown is worthwhile (it might be or might not be). Lockdown is not our default state, and in fact is a significant infringement on personal liberty.

One of the red flags is you haven't talked about probabilities at all, or attempted to characterize the health impact (e.g. in terms of QALY) of these aftereffects. To make a rational decision you need to quantify the costs and benefits. If your lockdown argument would be the same if the risk were 10x higher or 10x lower it's unlikely to be rational; that would swing the cost-benefit ratio by 10-100x.

Pedestrian Aug 21, 2020 6:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 9018236)
Is it rational for households made up of people age 40 and under to lock themselves up for 0.8% of their life to avoid a 0.2% or maybe 0.1% risk of death plus the risks of other health impacts (which are probably not multiple times costlier than the risk of death)?

Can authorities answer this question? No, because it depends on how much people care about the covid measures they take. The price of not going to the theatre or to a restaurant depends on the value to the individual. But I'd say it's far from being a clear win.

They are not locking themselves up to avoid 0.1% of death to themselves. In fact, they aren't locking themselves up. They are wearing masks, not going to events with more than 10 people or indoor restaurants and they are doing it to avoid increasing the amount of circulating virus--the R0 if you will--so that the populations vulnerable will have a lower chance of catching the illness and dying . . . for a few more months.

To argue as you seem to be is to argue as long as "I'm alright, Jack", 100,000 extra deaths among other groups is insufficient to keep me from going to the gym or a football game or concert (that's what 10023 regularly argues).

I had a very pleasant OUTDOOR lunch at a restaurant yesterday. I didn't feel I had missed anything when I went to bed last night.

Pedestrian Aug 21, 2020 6:57 PM

^^By the way, I'm an opera fan. I miss real live opera. But Rome just proved even that is possible (thanks to their ancestors of 2000 years ago):

Rigoletto at the Circus Maximus
https://www.wantedinrome.com/i/previ...-the-stars.jpg
https://www.wantedinrome.com/news/fr...s-maximus.html

someone123 Aug 21, 2020 7:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9018258)
They are not locking themselves up to avoid 0.1% of death to themselves. In fact, they aren't locking themselves up. They are wearing masks, not going to events with more than 10 people or indoor restaurants and they are doing it to avoid increasing the amount of circulating virus--the R0 if you will--so that the populations vulnerable will have a lower chance of catching the illness and dying . . . for a few more months.

Does this really make sense when the more vulnerable may not even live in the same household and when everybody can choose for themselves whether to go out to a restaurant? What if the 25 year olds ate out normally and the 80 year olds got takeout?

It's odd to accept that distancing measures make a big difference but also a young healthy person getting covid implies other more vulnerable people will get it too.

I have a feeling a lot of businesses and cultural institutions are not going to survive covid. The profit margins for concerts and restaurants are probably pretty thin. I would argue that a lot of these activities are what make life worth living, and so going without them significantly worsens quality of life.

someone123 Aug 21, 2020 8:04 PM

You guys are coming up with really weak arguments given that you're supporting the most unusual mandatory change to life in North America that has been seen since WWII.

I don't necessarily have a strong opinion one way or the other about the policies that should be implemented but it's food for thought.

I think for the most part we should try to open up over time and let actual deaths and hospitalizations determine the public health response, while being careful to tease out exactly who is affected. I don't think this process should be governed by fear of the unknown.

Pedestrian Aug 21, 2020 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 9018358)
Does this really make sense when the more vulnerable may not even live in the same household and when everybody can choose for themselves whether to go out to a restaurant? What if the 25 year olds ate out normally and the 80 year olds got takeout?

It's odd to accept that distancing measures make a big difference but also a young healthy person getting covid implies other more vulnerable people will get it too.

I have a feeling a lot of businesses and cultural institutions are not going to survive covid. The profit margins for concerts and restaurants are probably pretty thin. I would argue that a lot of these activities are what make life worth living, and so going without them significantly worsens quality of life.

Yes, it makes sense. First of all, many older people do not live by themselves and are not locked up in nursing homes. But those that do depend on others who are younger. I've been about as strict as is practical to isolate myself, but I've had to have younger tradespeople--plumbers, appliance repair people and delivery people etc--in my home a number of times since March. The concierge in my condo who hands me packages is about 20. The guys who deliver my groceries are about the same. Most of the waiters at outdoor dining spots and/or that hand you takeout are the same age. And not everybody delivers everything (especially not if money matter--I'm lucky in that I'm not short of it but delivery gets expensive). Then there's an upcoming doctor's appointment that can't be "zoomed"--I'll get there and back in an Uber, likely with a youngish driver--maybe the same age as the guy who drew my blood for tests last month.

It simply isn't possible to totally remove the young people from your life. You can only take reasonable precautions. But if you are a 40-something diabetic or maybe a little fat with kids in school, you are entirely subject to what the kids may bring home.

Pedestrian Aug 21, 2020 8:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 9018367)
You guys are coming up with really weak arguments given that you're supporting the most unusual mandatory change to life in North America that has been seen since WWII.

I don't necessarily have a strong opinion one way or the other about the policies that should be implemented but it's food for thought.

I think for the most part we should try to open up over time and let actual deaths and hospitalizations determine the public health response, while being careful to tease out exactly who is affected. I don't think this process should be governed by fear of the unknown.

The arguments you are being presented with are essentially those that every western government has adopted. You are the outlier by wanting something different and your motives are open to question, the question being , "Do you actually care about anyone else?" Our leaders are trying to do the best things for their entire populations/societies. We can debate the balance between economics and epidemiology, but the starting point will not be "just lock the old people up and let everything else go back to normal". The old people aren't going to let you and thank goodness for that.

someone123 Aug 21, 2020 8:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9018377)
Yes, it makes sense. First of all, many older people do not live by themselves and are not locked up in nursing homes. But those that do depend on others who are younger. I've been about as strict as is practical to isolate myself, but I've had to have younger tradespeople--plumbers, appliance repair people and delivery people etc--in my home a number of times since March. The concierge in my condo who hands me packages is about 20. The guys who deliver my groceries are about the same.

Why do you need to have significant exposure to these people? If you stay 2 m away from them your odds of getting covid are minimal.

Care homes were a disaster. That's where 80% of Canada's deaths were. But they are supposed to use PPE, limit visits or moving workers between facilities, etc. That shit show is not the fault of 30 year olds who have never even been in a care home.

Pedestrian Aug 21, 2020 9:01 PM

[QUOTE=someone123;9018403]Why do you need to have significant exposure to these people? If you stay 2 m away from them your odds of getting covid are minimal.
Quote:


We simply don't know that. The 2m "rule" has always been a compromise based on guesses. Plenty of research now shows that (a) sometimes droplets or aerosols can travel further than that, especially indoors where air movements are gentle and constant, and (2) aerosols containing virus can persist in the air for hours so even if you stay 2m from the plumber while he's there, you are likely to walk through his aerosol cloud after he leaves. Similarly, you can walk through the cloud left by the last person to pick up a package, ride in the elevator or sit in the Uber. If they are all properly masked, it helps a lot. But young people where I live seem to like wearing "gators" and those are now being shown not to work for aerosols and no face covering totally eliminates the risk

Quote:

Aerosol and Surface Distribution of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Hospital Wards, Wuhan, China, 2020
Zhen-Dong Guo1, Zhong-Yi Wang1, et. al.

ABSTRACT

To determine distribution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in hospital wards in Wuhan, China, we tested air and surface samples. Contamination was greater in intensive care units than general wards. Virus was widely distributed on floors, computer mice, trash cans, and sickbed handrails and was detected in air ≈4 m from patients . . . .

The Study

From February 19 through March 2, 2020, we collected swab samples from potentially contaminated objects in the ICU and GW as described previously (5). The ICU housed 15 patients with severe disease and the GW housed 24 patients with milder disease. We also sampled indoor air and the air outlets to detect aerosol exposure . . . . We used sterile premoistened swabs to sample the floors, computer mice, trash cans, sickbed handrails, patient masks, personal protective equipment, and air outlets. We tested air and surface samples for the open reading frame (ORF) 1ab and nucleoprotein (N) genes of SARS-CoV-2 by quantitative real-time PCR. (Appendix).

Almost all positive results were concentrated in the contaminated areas (ICU 54/57, 94.7%; GW 9/9, 100%); the rate of positivity was much higher for the ICU (54/124, 43.5%) than for the GW (9/114, 7.9%) (Tables 1, 2). The rate of positivity was relatively high for floor swab samples (ICU 7/10, 70%; GW 2/13, 15.4%), perhaps because of gravity and air flow causing most virus droplets to float to the ground. In addition, as medical staff walk around the ward, the virus can be tracked all over the floor, as indicated by the 100% rate of positivity from the floor in the pharmacy, where there were no patients. Furthermore, half of the samples from the soles of the ICU medical staff shoes tested positive. Therefore, the soles of medical staff shoes might function as carriers. The 3 weak positive results from the floor of dressing room 4 might also arise from these carriers. We highly recommend that persons disinfect shoe soles before walking out of wards containing COVID-19 patients.

The rate of positivity was also relatively high for the surface of the objects that were frequently touched by medical staff or patients (Tables 1, 2). The highest rates were for computer mice (ICU 6/8, 75%; GW 1/5, 20%), followed by trash cans (ICU 3/5, 60%; GW 0/8), sickbed handrails (ICU 6/14, 42.9%; GW 0/12), and doorknobs (GW 1/12, 8.3%). Sporadic positive results were obtained from sleeve cuffs and gloves of medical staff. These results suggest that medical staff should perform hand hygiene practices immediately after patient contact.

Because patient masks contained exhaled droplets and oral secretions, the rate of positivity for those masks was also high (Tables 1, 2). We recommend adequately disinfecting masks before discarding them.

We further assessed the risk for aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2. First, we collected air in the isolation ward of the ICU (12 air supplies and 16 air discharges per hour) and GW (8 air supplies and 12 air discharges per hour) and obtained positive test results for 35% (14 samples positive/40 samples tested) of ICU samples and 12.5% (2/16) of GW samples. Air outlet swab samples also yielded positive test results, with positive rates of 66.7% (8/12) for ICUs and 8.3% (1/12) for GWs. These results confirm that SARS-CoV-2 aerosol exposure poses risks . . . . we found that rates of positivity differed by air sampling site, which reflects the distribution of virus-laden aerosols in the wards (Figure 2, panel A). Sampling sites were located near the air outlets (site 1), in patients’ rooms (site 2), and (site 3). SARS-CoV-2 aerosol was detected at all 3 sampling sites; rates of positivity were 35.7% (5/14) near air outlets, 44.4% (8/18) in patients’ rooms, and 12.5% (1/8) in the doctors’ office area. These findings indicate that virus-laden aerosols were mainly concentrated near and downstream from the patients. However, exposure risk was also present in the upstream area; on the basis of the positive detection result from site 3, the maximum transmission distance of SARS-CoV-2 aerosol might be 4 m . . . .

Conclusions

This study led to 3 conclusions. First, SARS-CoV-2 was widely distributed in the air and on object surfaces in both the ICU and GW, implying a potentially high infection risk for medical staff and other close contacts. Second, the environmental contamination was greater in the ICU than in the GW; thus, stricter protective measures should be taken by medical staff working in the ICU. Third, the SARS-CoV-2 aerosol distribution characteristics in the ICU indicate that the transmission distance of SARS-CoV-2 might be 4 m.

As of March 30, no staff members at Huoshenshan Hospital had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, indicating that appropriate precautions could effectively prevent infection. In addition, our findings suggest that home isolation of persons with suspected COVID-19 might not be a good control strategy. Family members usually do not have personal protective equipment and lack professional training, which easily leads to familial cluster infections (6). During the outbreak, the government of China strove to the fullest extent possible to isolate all patients with suspected COVID-19 by actions such as constructing mobile cabin hospitals in Wuhan (7), which ensured that all patients with suspected disease were cared for by professional medical staff and that virus transmission was effectively cut off. As of the end of March, the SARS-COV-2 epidemic in China had been well controlled.

Our study has 2 limitations. First, the results of the nucleic acid test do not indicate the amount of viable virus. Second, for the unknown minimal infectious dose, the aerosol transmission distance cannot be strictly determined.

Overall, we found that the air and object surfaces in COVID-19 wards were widely contaminated by SARS-CoV-2. These findings can be used to improve safety practices.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0885_article

Care homes were a disaster. That's where 80% of Canada's deaths were. But they are supposed to use PPE, limit visits or moving workers between facilities, etc. That shit show is not the fault of 30 year olds who have never even been in a care home.
Where do you think the virus in care homes came from? It was multiple sources. Often, it was already infected individuals transferred into the home. But it was also younger staff people who got infected outside the home and brought virus into the home. Most homes are not allowing visitors because they too would bring in virus. But as with individuals living in their own homes, sometimes repair people are needed. Home residents come and go. Nursing homes are not sealed environments and can't be.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.