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)

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:59 AM.

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