COVID-19 Thread

[homer]

So maybe for profit, decentralized healthcare isn't well suited for pandemics?

 

That would be true if most other countries had plenty of PPE on hand, which isn't the case, of course. Just ask the UK as a quick example.

 

But just a few posts ago you said it's the hospitals fault for not preparing better. Then a few posts before that one you blamed governors. Looks like you're leaving one entity out. I'm guessing it's purposeful.

[reillymcshane]

I can only talk for my wife's organization - but if they had a lot more testing, they would be doing more (or in the stages of rolling out more services). No one is stopping them. The lack of testing is what is stopping them.

 

They have plans in place to start doing more procedures and services - prioritizing what types of things go first, what goes, second, etc. Almost all of this relies on getting more testing in place.

 

But who knows, maybe - at some point - it will be decided that having testing for everyone isn't necessary. It all comes down to safety - for the providers and patients.

 

I've said this a couple of other times - COVID is so very different than other viruses because a person can have it and not display any symptoms. This is so huge.

 

This is why 're-opening' the economy isn't the same for every industry. But for healthcare - it's critical. A doctor or nurse or technician comes into contact with so many people in the course of a day. They touch their face, put their fingers into their mouth, draw blood or handle urine samples, etc., etc. Most jobs don't have this kind of contact, which is - again - why healthcare environments are so dangerous in this kind of situation.

[superfly]

We can do it, if our grandfathers could muster the courage to storm Normandy beach we can handle getting back to life while practicing SAFE precautions and get past this virus.

 

Our grandfathers gave up so much for such a selfless cause, and it's astoundingly remarkable that after what, five weeks of being asked just to stay in our homes, in an era of video games, streaming services, Amazon, and food delivery, people are holding protests and clamoring for their Governors to open Buffalo Wild Wings.

 

That mindset literally puts those very grandfathers in harm's way in this case.

 

Well said PeaveyFury. I don't mean for the following to get political, I am just trying to gather my thoughts because it seems as though there is a logic breakdown going on with the people who want to open things back up.

 

The individuals protesting Safe At Home Orders of wanting to be Liberated are doing so because they feel as though these policies are negatively impacting them financially. They are not considering the counter argument, that they could instead be demanding more Government Stimulus, especially cash payouts or rent/mortgage deferment. If you look around the world you see what other developed countries are doing and what is happening here doesn't make sense to me.

 

If you tell people to stay home and reduce or eliminate incomes, then you need to provide essentials like food and shelter. A one time payment of $1200 is nothing. Instead we have some members of our government supporting protesting the very thing that is keeping this from getting significantly worse. How is this happening?

 

You do know that it’s OK to be concerned about the Virus, the Economy, and obtrusive Government all at the same time, correct? Why would people want to demand more government “stimulus” also known as currency devaluation in the name of “keeping people afloat?” This isn’t a one or another argument for some folks. We are 25 TRILLION dollars in debt with an economy that is currently shut off. Social security is bankrupt, folks are losing retirement money they could be saving to make up this difference every day this goes on. How is this a good thing?

 

Many people you accuse of only being concerned about financials are weighing the pros and cons of every angle to this. I happen to feel that the economy being shut off, hospitals mass laying off staff, folks being unable to get treatments or appointments for critical service or mental health, etc etc to be more detrimental past these 2 months of this safer at home order for a virus that WE MUST EXPOSE OURSELVES TO in order to get past it. We are going to lose more people to health issues than the virus if we stay closed too long.

 

I get it. Some people can indefinitely work from home, my wife included. I am working outside and although I missed a month, I am now working. So please don’t infer that I am thinking about my finances, because it’s the other millions of workers that I am deeply concerned about. I truly wish this was a utopia and we could just sit in our houses for 2 years to cure all ills, but it isn’t gonna happen. Woohoo for our $1200 Fed Bucks checks, where did the other $38,000 or whatever it is per taxpayer go? Oh that’s right it went to bail out big industry. Shall we stay closed indefinitely so you and I continue to see 5% of new government spending end up with us and 95% end up in big industry’s pockets (ending up trillions more in debt) or should we accept the inevitable?

[LouisEly]

You don't even have to stay inside. There are hundreds of trails open and nobody is stopping you from chipping golf balls, flying a kite or doing whatever in any of the million acres of green space. People are just sitting inside because their favorite restaurant is closed but there is plenty to do outside.

Unless you live in the Chicago area, where all of the trails are closed and where the suburbs have closed the trails to non-locals, and they have closed down the lakefront parks.

 

I drove up to WI on Saturday to run on the Ice Age Trail, and the parking lots at the trail heads were closed. Had to park on the highway. (Technically I broke the law by leaving to do something non-essential. Chicago is Stay at Home unless doing something essential; I could have been fined if I were caught.)

[LouisEly]

Also, while I'm at it, I'm sick of hearing medical providers whine about lack of PPE. Why didn't they have a supply on hand for a pandemic, or any other type of emergency?

Inventory costs money, hospitals are for-profit, governments are broke.

[PeaveyFury]

But business owners aren't doing most of the complaining. It's people who want to go do things.

 

Yep. I'd bet the people at the Brookfield rally waving the confederate flag were far more interested in their ability to go to Buffalo Wild Wings than anything to do with a small business.

 

The issue I have is that people continue to blame the stay at home order for 'missed appointments' and the cancellation of elective procedures, when it's hospital policy that's to blame.

 

Go urge the hospital to revise their procedures. Many of them are probably considering a loosening as it has already been noted here previously.

[hawing]

This is a huge frustration on their part. They just don't know when they are going to get stuff. They'll get an order for supplies - and then have those supplies taken by the federal government and diverted somewhere else.

I realize this is likely one of those cases where if you have to ask the question, you don't want to know the answer...but why would the feds do this?

[igor67]

A much more interesting thing to think about is what we are learning about susceptibility of supply chains and what the systematic loss of manufacturing capacity means. Even internally the fact that half of our pork is processed at 1 plant in South Dakota suddenly makes us incredibly vulnerable. Obviously there is no significant business that keeps nearly 10 times their yearly inventory on hand just in case, but having the capability to pivot reasonably quickly, and not having overly concentrated areas of manufacturing and supply makes the system much more robust to all kinds of shocks not just pandemics. On the investing side its diversify assets. Biologically we actually see this as specialists and generalists. Typically in a stable environment the specialist out-competes the generalist. Specialist species however tend to go extinct much more rapidly (think Koala's and eucalyptus). That large latent manufacturing power was huge in WWII after all.

[homer]

Igor have you read Range by David Epstein? Right up your alley.

[MrTPlush]

I understand we won’t ever be close to using 100% of testing capacity considering counties need to be prepared for an influx (even though it likely never comes), but today’s update points to us using 20-25% of current capacity... assuming today’s results are a few days old.

 

That seems crazy low, especially when it is consistently this low. Seems like it is time to divert resources to areas that need it more or start aggressively testing healthcare officials etc. more.

 

Seems weird to demand we need 12,500 tests per day to start opening things back up when we currently use 1,500 of some 7,500 we claim we can do. As I have mentioned before the negative rate is exponentially more despite strict testing requirements and using a sliver of available tests. Seems crazy.

[3and2Fastball]

Oldschoolsnapper: my sympathies for your loss

[reillymcshane]

I understand we won’t ever be close to using 100% of testing capacity considering counties need to be prepared for an influx (even though it likely never comes), but today’s update points to us using 20-25% of current capacity... assuming today’s results are a few days old.

 

That seems crazy low, especially when it is consistently this low. Seems like it is time to divert resources to areas that need it more or start aggressively testing healthcare officials etc. more.

 

Seems weird to demand we need 12,500 tests per day to start opening things back up when we currently use 1,500 of some 7,500 we claim we can do. As I have mentioned before the negative rate is exponentially more despite strict testing requirements and using a sliver of available tests. Seems crazy.

This is especially true if the expected influx isn't as bad as they expected. Let's hope things can open up more.

 

With regards to testing, the big question is do we have the supplies to actually run 7,500 tests (or whatever is the number)?

 

I mean, we might have the labs and facilities all set to run 7,500 tests - and I can say I can run 7,500 tests - but if we don't have swabs and reagents - that number is meaningless. I know the supplies has been the big issue for my wife's organization. However, we are not in a hotspot, so it might simply be a bigger issue because we don't need them like other areas.

 

Let's hope our capacity keeps growing. This is the kind of thing everyone has been working at virtually every level since day 1 of this thing. It is really only a matter of time for this stuff to happen. Obviously, we want it earlier than later.

[reillymcshane]

This is a huge frustration on their part. They just don't know when they are going to get stuff. They'll get an order for supplies - and then have those supplies taken by the federal government and diverted somewhere else.

I realize this is likely one of those cases where if you have to ask the question, you don't want to know the answer...but why would the feds do this?

Things get diverted to areas of high need. It's understandable - but frustrating.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Higher humidity doesn't seem to have impacted the virus in Louisiana.

 

Average humidity in wisconsin February 2019 - low 70s

Average humidity in Louisiana February 2019 - mid 70s

 

Last time I checked the outbreak in Louisiana didnt occur in July when it's actually high humidity. And Louisiana doesnt have significantly higher humidity in February when compared to winter climates. Plus you are cherry picking a state that probably has some of the worst air pollution in the country due to industry in some of its hardest hit areas of viral spread that leads to a higher than normal occurrence of respiratory comorbidities. I'm actually surprised their death toll isnt much higher than it is given the fact Mardi gras basically went off without any restrictions right before everyone freaked out.

 

Humid air has more water in it that can absorb airborne particles, and that added material in air prevents aerosols from spreading as far as they would in drier air. There doesnt need to be a study on that. Humidity probably doesnt do anything to kill the actual virus, but it does help prevent how easily it could spread in the air, which would in turn lower its R parameter.

[Jimbo]

Higher humidity doesn't seem to have impacted the virus in Louisiana.

 

Average humidity in wisconsin February 2019 - low 70s

Average humidity in Louisiana February 2019 - mid 70s

 

Last time I checked the outbreak in Louisiana didnt occur in July when it's actually high humidity. And Louisiana doesnt have significantly higher humidity in February when compared to winter climates. Plus you are cherry picking a state that probably has some of the worst air pollution in the country due to industry in some of its hardest hit areas of viral spread that leads to a higher than normal occurrence of respiratory comorbidities. I'm actually surprised their death toll isnt much higher than it is given the fact Mardi gras basically went off without any restrictions right before everyone freaked out.

 

Humid air has more water in it that can absorb airborne particles, and that added material in air prevents aerosols from spreading as far as they would in drier air. There doesnt need to be a study on that. Humidity probably doesnt do anything to kill the actual virus, but it does help prevent how easily it could spread in the air, which would in turn lower its R parameter.

 

Please keep in mind the difference between relative humidity and absolute humidity. RH is what you see on the screen during the 10:00 weather. 70% RH in April is not the same as 70% RH in August.

[igor67]

I have not read Range, but I have read the Sports Gene which was quite good. I'm very slowly working through my backlog of reading. I would also highly recommend Who We are and How We got Here by David Reich history meets genetics.

[thebruce44]

My wife works in a Milwaukee area hospital (not on the front lines), but I can confirm this to be the case why that particular hospital was looking into furloughs - their census was down due to the expected flood of COVID cases not occurring, along with the postponement of anything not seen as an emergency.

 

Thanks. I honestly though this was fairly common knowledge, but I was challenged pretty heavily for suggesting it.

 

Are we really going to draw conclusions from all this second hand anecdotal evidence?

[homer]

Supplies are a factor for some places. Makes sense since a highly infectious disease you need to replace more stuff more often I'd imagine. This is from Wash Post. Behind a paywall.

 

 

[LouisEly]

I think the point is that the humidity in Louisiana in February is about the same as the humidity in Wisconsin. The fact that it spread very quickly in Louisiana but not in Wisconsin has nothing to do with humidity.

 

I think the fact that viruses aren't as prevalent in the summer is as much attributed to vitamin D3 levels and sunshine as it is humidity. Vitamin D3 is considered the most important vitamin in terms of supporting your immune system.

 

To me, it looks like population density is the biggest culprit for which areas are hotspots.

[homer]

My point is we don't know if temperature or humidity have an impact on this virus. It might but we just don't know as there is no consensus. Population density seems to be the biggest culprit like you said.

[stoutdude04]

I read the AG is going to take legal action against states not opening up. Isnt that the opposite of states rights?

[jerichoholicninja]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/us/california-deaths-earliest-in-us/index.html

 

Two deaths in Northern California's Santa Clara County happened February 6 and 17, the county said Tuesday in a news release.

 

The previously understood first coronavirus death happened on February 29 in Kirkland, Washington.

 

The two in California had no known travel histories to China or anywhere else that would have exposed them to the virus, Dr. Sara Cody, the county's chief medical officer, told The New York Times. They are presumed to have caught the virus through community spread, she told the Times.

 

"That is a very significant finding," Dr. Ashish K. Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told CNN's "New Day" on Wednesday.

 

"Somebody who died on February 6, they probably contracted that virus early to mid-January. It takes at least two to three weeks from the time you contract the virus and you die from it."

 

If they did not contract coronavirus through travel abroad, that also is significant, Jha said.

 

"That means there was community spread happening in California as early as mid-January, if not earlier than that," Jha said.

 

"We really need to now go back, look at a lot more cases from January -- even December -- and try to sort out when did we first really encounter this virus in the United States," Jha said.

 

This has been here for much longer than people want to admit. By the time we knew about it, it was too late to do anything to contain it.

[3and2Fastball]

Here’s another article on the same topic

 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-21/autopsies-reveal-first-confirmed-u-s-coronavirus-deaths-occurred-in-bay-area-in-early-february?fbclid=IwAR3zKTl5u4IxCsEKDaUoUeqTOozo5IG3i1wPr7fxv1z34TPvfqpHZtY4F8U

 

I’m fairly sure that a first round of this virus swept through Madison in late February. If so: My entire family got it. At some point the results of widespread testing will be fascinating

[homer]

We've had documented cases of Covid in the US since January. That's not really new news. CDC has had this on their website since the beginning. So while the CDC might have said "8 cases on 2/1" it could very well have been 100 cases or 500 or whatever. It takes a long time for it to hit critical mass and then a very short time to explode and that's exactly what happened.

 

I believe the first documented death (before today) was 3/1 and we didn't get to 50 deaths until about two weeks later. So regardless of when it got here we've had 40,000 deaths in a span of like 5 weeks. I would be interested to know if the regular flu ever had a death spike that bad. I'm guessing it did not.

[reillymcshane]

Question: can you test someone and find out if they ever had the virus (this is assuming the person does not actually have COVID at the time of testing)?

 

Just wondering if anyone knew this answer.