COVID-19 Thread

[pacopete4]

So all science then.

[RobertR]

I do not want to be alarmist, but the current trend line isn't very encouraging. Granted, some of that is increased testing, but even the average seems to be ticking upwards.

[Machu Peach]

I do not want to be alarmist, but the current trend line isn't very encouraging. Granted, some of that is increased testing, but even the average seems to be ticking upwards.

What trend line are you referring to?

[homer]

So, now wearing masks is not a good idea, again. I swear they're making this up as they go along, yet people are still listening to the "experts" and their junk science.

 

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/who-guidance-healthy-people-should-wear-masks-only-when-taking-care-of-coronavirus-patients/ar-BB14JBI4?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Just so I know what to look out for, what exactly is the definition of “junk science”?

 

Is it any science?

Science I agree with?

Science I disagree with?

science by someone who is not a scientist?

Science by many people who are scientists?

 

Great question. Junk science is "science" that does nor follow the scientific method. Commonly, it is influenced by any and all of: bias, politics, and money.

 

Anti-science has plenty of the same.

[reillymcshane]

I do not want to be alarmist, but the current trend line isn't very encouraging. Granted, some of that is increased testing, but even the average seems to be ticking upwards.

What trend line are you referring to?

I'm guessing it's that - on Thursday - the state had its most report cases in a single day - and the 3-day total (from Tue.-Thur) is the highest recorded.

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/05/29/wisconsin-coronavirus-733-new-cases-new-three-day-high-deaths/5282911002/

[jjfanec]

I do not want to be alarmist, but the current trend line isn't very encouraging. Granted, some of that is increased testing, but even the average seems to be ticking upwards.

What trend line are you referring to?

I'm guessing it's that - on Thursday - the state had its most report cases in a single day - and the 3-day total (from Tue.-Thur) is the highest recorded.

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/05/29/wisconsin-coronavirus-733-new-cases-new-three-day-high-deaths/5282911002/

 

As someone who thinking the way we reopened was foolish I still pause a little when looking at the numbers. I have followed them this whole time and noticed that it seemed like weekends were always much lower and then the week days much higher. So I was expecting the week following a holiday weekend to have a high Tuesday to Friday. To me the best way to look would be the Sunday to Saturday just because it ses like how numbers are reported puts a lot on week days. So how does this past week as a whole compare to weeks during covid-19. If that is significantly higher than we have an issue

[dpapo]

The WHO is not saying it's a bad idea to wear masks. The recommend that people who are showing Covid-19 symptoms should wear a mask, along with wearing a mask if you are with someone who has Covid-19. They wouldn't make those recommendations if they thought it was a bad idea to wear masks. The CDC has added that a significant portion of individuals with coronavirus lack symptoms (“asymptomatic”) and that even those who eventually develop symptoms (“pre-symptomatic”) can transmit the virus to others before showing symptoms. So, people should wear masks.

The reason given by the WHO for why healthy people shouldn't wear masks, is not because they don't think it helps, but rather the fear that people will only rely on masks and not continue to wash hands, keep proper distance, etc.... But, since people who appear to be healthy can still and have transmit the virus, the CDC recommends the use of masks in public settings, areas where it's difficult to keep the proper distance and so on.

Another reason for the difference, which the WHO doesn't mentioned and which I have also seen mentioned in the past, is that not all countries have enough supplies of masks.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-offer-conflicting-advice-masks-expert-tells-us/story?id=70958380

 

In addition, as was mentioned in the other article linked to by the other poster,

"The authors noted that countries and regions -- Macau, Beijing, Taiwan, Singapore and Japan -- with histories of wearing masks have seen huge reductions in the number of coronavirus cases after reaching their peak."

South Korea is another country that has done much better than other countries in limiting the numbers of people catching and dying of COVID-19, by wide spread testing before the WHO stressed it and by the use of masks. Along with being better prepared in general as well.

There is more than enough evidence to show that masks do work. Take away the politics of wearing masks and just look at what the experts and evidence with a fair mind, then make up your own mind.

[RobertR]

I'm mostly referring to the 7-day average of cases here. That should even out the data to an extent.

 

https://projects.jsonline.com/topics/coronavirus/tracking/covid-19-cases-testing-and-deaths-in-wisconsin.html

 

There's a lot of noise in the data obviously and some of it is simply more testing, but at best, I think we're looking at a long plateau.

 

That said, I think the bars and restaurants opening up the way they did was foolish. The bars more than the restaurants.

[homer]

One thing I'm curious to know is what the overall 2020 deaths are relative to expected overall deaths (compared to 2018, 19, etc). Does anyone have the statistics on these? I think this can help put things in perspective of how much if at all that the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to deaths in society. We know many people died with COVID-19, but how many died with it and how many died BECAUSE of it, if that makes sense.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/investigations/coronavirus-excess-deaths-may/

 

 

"Between March 1 and May 9, the nation recorded an estimated 101,600 excess deaths, or deaths beyond the number that would normally be expected for that time of year…"

 

Unknown how many of these are due to Covid and how many are due to other things.

[Samurai Bucky]

One thing I'm curious to know is what the overall 2020 deaths are relative to expected overall deaths (compared to 2018, 19, etc). Does anyone have the statistics on these? I think this can help put things in perspective of how much if at all that the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to deaths in society. We know many people died with COVID-19, but how many died with it and how many died BECAUSE of it, if that makes sense.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/investigations/coronavirus-excess-deaths-may/

 

"Between March 1 and May 9, the nation recorded an estimated 101,600 excess deaths, or deaths beyond the number that would normally be expected for that time of year…"

 

Unknown how many of these are due to Covid and how many are due to other things.

Does this mean the event was mishandled, or the original estimate was wrong? ... or maybe a combination of both?

The Yale-led team used historical death data to estimate the expected number of deaths for each week this year, adjusting for such factors as seasonal variation and the intensity of flu epidemics. To calculate excess deaths, the researchers subtracted their estimate of expected deaths from the overall number of deaths reported by the National Center for Health Statistics.

 

... but it is not the flu...

[PeaveyFury]

Wisconsin's graph on that site is fascinating.

[jerichoholicninja]

ROME (Reuters) - The new coronavirus is losing its potency and has become much less lethal, a senior Italian doctor said on Sunday.

 

“In reality, the virus clinically no longer exists in Italy,” said Alberto Zangrillo, the head of the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan in the northern region of Lombardy, which has borne the brunt of Italy’s coronavirus contagion.

 

“The swabs that were performed over the last 10 days showed a viral load in quantitative terms that was absolutely infinitesimal compared to the ones carried out a month or two months ago,” he told RAI television.

 

...

 

A second doctor from northern Italy told the national ANSA news agency that he was also seeing the coronavirus weaken.

 

“The strength the virus had two months ago is not the same strength it has today,” said Matteo Bassetti, head of the infectious diseases clinic at the San Martino hospital in the city of Genoa.

 

“It is clear that today the COVID-19 disease is different.”

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-virus-idUSKBN2370OQ

 

Sounds encouraging.

[igor67]

Evolving to be less lethal is certainly plausible, even predictable. However barring something more concrete as evidence that's happened I'd withhold judgement. The style of the article and the quotes don't fill me with optimism to be honest. It sounds more like a heavy slant piece instead of an interview with a researcher.

[JosephC]

 

Just so I know what to look out for, what exactly is the definition of “junk science”?

 

 

Going into an "unprecedented time" and treating models as absolute predictors of what will happen. If it's unprecedented, how can we expect to get reliable data out of the model? Somewhere along the line, an individual or group of individuals, will have to plug in some numbers as a baseline to begin the projection, but how do they come up with those numbers if it is all unprecedented?

 

Personally, I wouldn't call this science or junk science because it actually is neither. At best it's an initial hypothesis that hasn't undergone any scientific testing or scrutiny. Unfortunately, the media and politicians seem to decide what is science and, as a whole, those are probably the two least qualified groups on the planet to do that.

 

Unfortunately there was a chance by the government to actually do some science by performing some actual contact tracing early on and proceed with policy based on some actual hard data. But Wisconsin fell flat here, and that's not to rip specifically on Wisconsin, because it seems that nationwide the government fell completely flat in what was likely the most opportune time to get some real reliable data on transmission rates.

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/health/2020/04/23/coronavirus-patients-not-contacted-covid-19-victims-wait-interviewed-milwaukee-health-department/5150125002/

 

So we never got "guy A" has the virus. Who does "guy A" live with? How many of the people also living with "guy A" got sick? Where did "guy A" go the last two weeks? 8 places that he can remember....how many other positive cases can we trace back to those 8 places? Apparently that's too much work for the government. They like computer models because it's easy, cheaper, techie...and they think they can easily talk their way out of ridiculous "60% infected" projections because it is SCIENCE. Complete failure.

[owbc]

 

Just so I know what to look out for, what exactly is the definition of “junk science”?

 

 

Going into an "unprecedented time" and treating models as absolute predictors of what will happen. If it's unprecedented, how can we expect to get reliable data out of the model? Somewhere along the line, an individual or group of individuals, will have to plug in some numbers as a baseline to begin the projection, but how do they come up with those numbers if it is all unprecedented?

 

Personally, I wouldn't call this science or junk science because it actually is neither. At best it's an initial hypothesis that hasn't undergone any scientific testing or scrutiny. Unfortunately, the media and politicians seem to decide what is science and, as a whole, those are probably the two least qualified groups on the planet to do that.

 

Unfortunately there was a chance by the government to actually do some science by performing some actual contact tracing early on and proceed with policy based on some actual hard data. But Wisconsin fell flat here, and that's not to rip specifically on Wisconsin, because it seems that nationwide the government fell completely flat in what was likely the most opportune time to get some real reliable data on transmission rates.

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/health/2020/04/23/coronavirus-patients-not-contacted-covid-19-victims-wait-interviewed-milwaukee-health-department/5150125002/

 

So we never got "guy A" has the virus. Who does "guy A" live with? How many of the people also living with "guy A" got sick? Where did "guy A" go the last two weeks? 8 places that he can remember....how many other positive cases can we trace back to those 8 places? Apparently that's too much work for the government. They like computer models because it's easy, cheaper, techie...and they think they can easily talk their way out of ridiculous "60% infected" projections because it is SCIENCE. Complete failure.

 

As someone who works in the modeling business, we have a saying: "All models are wrong, but some are useful."

 

Most of what you are saying sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking. Nobody had the job of doing the above because government wasn't paying anyone to do it. That was the failure point of government--not being prepared for a disaster that everyone knew would happen eventually.

 

So putting that aside (which is a political topic that is beyond the scope of this discussion), they really had no choice but to go to whatever experts they could find and scramble to organize. Most of the models initially came from university research groups who were applying their RESEARCH models to coronavirus.

 

This is like if a hurricane was approaching the United States and we didn't have the National Weather Service or National Hurricane Center so we used whatever models some university scientists happened to be working at the time. That's a guaranteed recipe for delivering inconsistent messages and having to amend recommendations on the fly. If they change their policy on masks and have good reasoning for it, then it's completely logical to go with it. I certainly changed my personal opinion on masks as this whole thing evolved.

[Machu Peach]

Unfortunately there was a chance by the government to actually do some science by performing some actual contact tracing early on and proceed with policy based on some actual hard data. But Wisconsin fell flat here, and that's not to rip specifically on Wisconsin, because it seems that nationwide the government fell completely flat in what was likely the most opportune time to get some real reliable data on transmission rates.

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/hea ... 150125002/

 

So we never got "guy A" has the virus. Who does "guy A" live with? How many of the people also living with "guy A" got sick? Where did "guy A" go the last two weeks? 8 places that he can remember....how many other positive cases can we trace back to those 8 places? Apparently that's too much work for the government. They like computer models because it's easy, cheaper, techie...and they think they can easily talk their way out of ridiculous "60% infected" projections because it is SCIENCE. Complete failure.

 

If only it was this easy.

[Machu Peach]

Not to throw more gas on the masks vs no masks fire, but I think this could be of interest to some people.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

 

On a semi-related note, I always find it bemusing when I hear someone say something to the effect of "Trust The Science!" I don't trust the science, I question it constantly. That's what makes me a Scientist. People everywhere, including some here, seem to think of SCIENCE! as a monolithic organization when it is certainly not. It's okay (and even necessary) for scientists to publicly disagree. Similarly, it's okay (and even necessary) for the opinions and positions of scientists to evolve as new information become available. It does not mean that anyone screwed up and it's all a very normal part of the process. I think the disconnect is because people are used to seeing public political debates and then apply the same rules to scientific debates.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Not to throw more gas on the masks vs no masks fire, but I think this could be of interest to some people.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

 

On a semi-related note, I always find it bemusing when I hear someone say something to the effect of "Trust The Science!" I don't trust the science, I question it constantly. That's what makes me a Scientist. People everywhere, including some here, seem to think of SCIENCE! as a monolithic organization when it is certainly not. It's okay (and even necessary) for scientists to publicly disagree. Similarly, it's okay (and even necessary) for the opinions and positions of scientists to evolve as new information become available. It does not mean that anyone screwed up and it's all a very normal part of the process. I think the disconnect is because people are used to seeing public political debates and then apply the same rules to scientific debates.

 

Wish we could put this on a billboard.

[FVBrewerFan]

Not to throw more gas on the masks vs no masks fire, but I think this could be of interest to some people.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

 

On a semi-related note, I always find it bemusing when I hear someone say something to the effect of "Trust The Science!" I don't trust the science, I question it constantly. That's what makes me a Scientist. People everywhere, including some here, seem to think of SCIENCE! as a monolithic organization when it is certainly not. It's okay (and even necessary) for scientists to publicly disagree. Similarly, it's okay (and even necessary) for the opinions and positions of scientists to evolve as new information become available. It does not mean that anyone screwed up and it's all a very normal part of the process. I think the disconnect is because people are used to seeing public political debates and then apply the same rules to scientific debates.

 

Great point. This can be extended to the CDC. I think often times people view CDC almost like it's one person. Of course ,it is not. They have to come out with official positions on everything, obviously. You can't announce "64% of our experts believe X, 28% believe Y, 8% believe Z." No, you come to a consensus as best you can, sprinkle in some politics and good old fashioned CYA, and make your announcement.

 

That doesn't mean it should be dismissed out of hand. It also doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned. There's a whole lot of Covid- related things that are not proven science yet.

[nate82]

Interesting article from NPR.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/28/863944333/antibody-tests-point-to-lower-death-rate-for-the-coronavirus-than-first-thought

[dpapo]

The article on masks was originally published on April 1st. A lot more is known about COVID-19 and the effectiveness of masks. Which also means most of the research and the article itself was written before the virus was as wide spread as it would become. And since that time, more experts and countries have recommended the use of masks.

[Samurai Bucky]

So we never got "guy A" has the virus. Who does "guy A" live with? How many of the people also living with "guy A" got sick? Where did "guy A" go the last two weeks? 8 places that he can remember....how many other positive cases can we trace back to those 8 places? Apparently that's too much work for the government. They like computer models because it's easy, cheaper, techie...and they think they can easily talk their way out of ridiculous "60% infected" projections because it is SCIENCE. Complete failure.

Unless I'm Kevin Bacon, I'm not a fan of having the government tracing my steps. Sure... I know they can track my cell phone and get a history of where I have been. However, if they start publishing some type of report, I would be quite disturbed. I would not want to suffer the same fate as Comrade Withers...

[jerichoholicninja]

So we never got "guy A" has the virus. Who does "guy A" live with? How many of the people also living with "guy A" got sick? Where did "guy A" go the last two weeks? 8 places that he can remember....how many other positive cases can we trace back to those 8 places? Apparently that's too much work for the government. They like computer models because it's easy, cheaper, techie...and they think they can easily talk their way out of ridiculous "60% infected" projections because it is SCIENCE. Complete failure.

Unless I'm Kevin Bacon, I'm not a fan of having the government tracing my steps. Sure... I know they can track my cell phone and get a history of where I have been. However, if they start publishing some type of report, I would be quite disturbed. I would not want to suffer the same fate as Comrade Withers...

 

The government is hiring thousands of people to do just this. I thought about applying to do it but decided the less I have this stupid disease on my mind the better for my mental health. Supposedly, the countries that have "beaten" the virus were doing this from the start.

[igor67]

While there may be some differences, fundamentally public health has been doing contract tracing for decades. HIV and tuberculosis being of the most common. I think most people would find HIV contract tracing far more invasive given that they are only concerned (for the most part) with sexual contact. The pervasive difficult to escape if you want to use modern technology tracking by private parties is much newer.

[LouisEly]

One thing I'm curious to know is what the overall 2020 deaths are relative to expected overall deaths (compared to 2018, 19, etc). Does anyone have the statistics on these? I think this can help put things in perspective of how much if at all that the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to deaths in society. We know many people died with COVID-19, but how many died with it and how many died BECAUSE of it, if that makes sense.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/investigations/coronavirus-excess-deaths-may/

 

 

"Between March 1 and May 9, the nation recorded an estimated 101,600 excess deaths, or deaths beyond the number that would normally be expected for that time of year…"

 

Unknown how many of these are due to Covid and how many are due to other things.

Why does the overall expected number of deaths begin to decline in mid-February and drop off in early May? Looks like way too much of a dropoff to simply be seasonal flu.