COVID-19 Thread

[owbc]

Actually pretty surprised at some of the wording on the Department of Health's website in regards to the masks-

 

There may be a benefit to reducing asymptomatic transmission and reinforcing physical distancing from the use of face covers. However, face coverings may increase risk if users reduce their use of strong defenses, such as physical distancing and frequent hand washing, when using cloth face coverings.

 

Wearing a cloth face cover may be beneficial as it may help to protect others from germs you may be spreading without knowing it.

 

There is limited evidence to suggest that use of cloth face coverings by the public during a pandemic could help reduce disease transmission. Their primary role is to reduce the release of infectious particles into the air when someone speaks, coughs, or sneezes, including someone who has COVID-19 but feels well.

 

https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/protect.htm

Scroll to bottom of page and click the "Should I Wear a Cloth Mask?" link.

 

I wonder how long it will be until the powers-that-be come down on Palm and Evers and get this language changed. "May increase risk." "May be beneficial as it may." "Limited evidence." Don't they know that the face mask concept will get businesses open and get us revenue....oh, ahh, wait...we mean SAVE THE WORLD! They are not following the narrative!

 

Pretty sick of the latest wave of media fear-mongering. Yes, it's gone crazy in the south, so crazy that we now have 2.7 million confirmed cases in a country with a population over 331 million (look out now, we are 80% of the way to a whopping 1% of the population being infected).

 

What part of exponential growth do you not understand?

 

I'm not seeing what is wrong with those recommendations. They seem consistent with the reasoning behind wearing masks. Masks do not stop COVID from spreading (duh). Masks do not replace social distancing (duh). These precautions can not completely prevent the spread of COVID (duh).

 

I have felt terrible for essential employees who have to deal with customers/clients not taking precautions seriously, so I'm glad that government/businesses are finally stepping up and enforcing masks.

[young guns]

Actually pretty surprised at some of the wording on the Department of Health's website in regards to the masks-

 

There may be a benefit to reducing asymptomatic transmission and reinforcing physical distancing from the use of face covers. However, face coverings may increase risk if users reduce their use of strong defenses, such as physical distancing and frequent hand washing, when using cloth face coverings.

 

Wearing a cloth face cover may be beneficial as it may help to protect others from germs you may be spreading without knowing it.

 

There is limited evidence to suggest that use of cloth face coverings by the public during a pandemic could help reduce disease transmission. Their primary role is to reduce the release of infectious particles into the air when someone speaks, coughs, or sneezes, including someone who has COVID-19 but feels well.

 

https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/protect.htm

Scroll to bottom of page and click the "Should I Wear a Cloth Mask?" link.

 

I wonder how long it will be until the powers-that-be come down on Palm and Evers and get this language changed. "May increase risk." "May be beneficial as it may." "Limited evidence." Don't they know that the face mask concept will get businesses open and get us revenue....oh, ahh, wait...we mean SAVE THE WORLD! They are not following the narrative!

 

Pretty sick of the latest wave of media fear-mongering. Yes, it's gone crazy in the south, so crazy that we now have 2.7 million confirmed cases in a country with a population over 331 million (look out now, we are 80% of the way to a whopping 1% of the population being infected).

I dont see any issues with these statements. The first one is saying it wont be much help if you feel like the mask is enough. The second one is saying it could help others from catching it from you if you are unknowingly sick, but it's not guaranteed. And the third statement is, I'm assuming, talking about how while a cloth mask isnt medical grade so it may not do much, but it should stop, or at least greatly reduce, the water particles that could contain the virus. None of these statements are contradictory.

[reillymcshane]

Interesting article "How Exactly Do You Catch Covid-19? There Is a Growing Consensus" from the Wall Street Journal. They say that the major culprit is close-up, person-to-person interactions for extended periods. Poor ventilation, crowded rooms, people talking (or singing) loudly maximize the risk.

 

This means places like gyms, parties, conferences, churches, etc., are big hot spots.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-exactly-do-you-catch-covid-19-there-is-a-growing-consensus-11592317650?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR1n5XgMdBQmc8OeQB9GmQNS77QK4xJjTqYpx_L3CzzAPVPJbS5ZbFzwKN8

 

It's an interesting read.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Interesting article "How Exactly Do You Catch Covid-19? There Is a Growing Consensus" from the Wall Street Journal. They say that the major culprit is close-up, person-to-person interactions for extended periods. Poor ventilation, crowded rooms, people talking (or singing) loudly maximize the risk.

 

This means places like gyms, parties, conferences, churches, etc., are big hot spots.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-exactly-do-you-catch-covid-19-there-is-a-growing-consensus-11592317650?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR1n5XgMdBQmc8OeQB9GmQNS77QK4xJjTqYpx_L3CzzAPVPJbS5ZbFzwKN8

 

It's an interesting read.

 

Hasn't this pretty much been known for months by now?

 

One other item of note related to masks, as google has done a masterful job of slapping a bunch of ads on pages I've been on related to buying masks - if you see anyone walking around with any type of face covering that has those one-way filter valves built in, run away from them faster than people with no mask at all. Those one way valves filter air that person is breathing in, but almost all of those filters aren't tight enough to prevent aerosols and other fine particles viruses may be latched onto from being inhaled. Then those same valves serve as concentrated exhaust ports for exhaled air/mist/droplets/etc that get spewed much farther out than someone just normally breathing from an unobstructed mouth or nose. For a general contractor working on a drywall project that doesn't want to inhale potential asbestos-containing material or other dust, they work great. For John Doe waltzing through the general public with a false sense of security, they turn him into a superspreader.

[tmwiese55]

It's really hard to believe after this long and these numbers (considering all the precautions we've done, think what it would be without) that so many people are still so dug in on it being overblown media hype bs. This viewpoint is continued to be proven wrong every step of the way going back to February and it still continues on. I guess nothing should surprise anymore, but at some point you'd think people would accept it was way more than they thought it would be and just listen to take it serious.

 

I'd even concede they're generally right in the view how negative headlines get clicks and that's overdone, but that by no means makes this not a hugely serious situation. Spitballing, let's say this is an 8 on a scale of 10 for level of badness (which is pretty high of course). Just because "the media" makes it out to be a 9 instead does not mean 8 still isn't a big deal.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

It's really hard to believe after this long and these numbers (considering all the precautions we've done, think what it would be without) that so many people are still so dug in on it being overblown media hype bs. This viewpoint is continued to be proven wrong every step of the way going back to February and it still continues on. I guess nothing should surprise anymore, but at some point you'd think people would accept it was way more than they thought it would be and just listen to take it serious.

 

I'd even concede they're generally right in the view how negative headlines get clicks and that's overdone, but that by no means makes this not a hugely serious situation. Spitballing, let's say this is an 8 on a scale of 10 for level of badness (which is pretty high of course). Just because "the media" makes it out to be a 9 instead does not mean 8 still isn't a big deal.

 

It's turned into a victim complex with most of the people who continue to deny the seriousness of this thing. Any sort of precaution or quarantine recommendation is automatically deemed as an attack on their freedoms, so to support their argument, they dig up information that points to the pandemic being either politicized or overblown. It is an extremely selfish and egotistical point of view, in my opinion. As an aside, I have seen people on both sides of the political spectrum that hold this type of viewpoint.

[LouisEly]

One other item of note related to masks, as google has done a masterful job of slapping a bunch of ads on pages I've been on related to buying masks - if you see anyone walking around with any type of face covering that has those one-way filter valves built in, run away from them faster than people with no mask at all. Those one way valves filter air that person is breathing in, but almost all of those filters aren't tight enough to prevent aerosols and other fine particles viruses may be latched onto from being inhaled. Then those same valves serve as concentrated exhaust ports for exhaled air/mist/droplets/etc that get spewed much farther out than someone just normally breathing from an unobstructed mouth or nose. For a general contractor working on a drywall project that doesn't want to inhale potential asbestos-containing material or other dust, they work great. For John Doe waltzing through the general public with a false sense of security, they turn him into a superspreader.

Can you share data/research that supports this?

 

From what I've seen, the PM2.5 filter that is inside of them covers the entire face covering, and it does not seem possible for air to not go through the filter whether they are inhaling or exhaling. Also, the vent is on the side of the face, not in front of the mouth/nose where someone is breathing/speaking - it's on the side of their mouth where very few droplets are going out. A vast majority of droplets are going into the cloth in front of the mouth/nose. I find it really, really hard to believe that they are not at least 90% as effective as a non-filtered masks.

[LouisEly]

Interesting article "How Exactly Do You Catch Covid-19? There Is a Growing Consensus" from the Wall Street Journal. They say that the major culprit is close-up, person-to-person interactions for extended periods. Poor ventilation, crowded rooms, people talking (or singing) loudly maximize the risk.

 

This means places like gyms, parties, conferences, churches, etc., are big hot spots.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-exactly-do-you-catch-covid-19-there-is-a-growing-consensus-11592317650?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR1n5XgMdBQmc8OeQB9GmQNS77QK4xJjTqYpx_L3CzzAPVPJbS5ZbFzwKN8

 

It's an interesting read.

Well, the contact tracing has shown much of the spread to be coming from bars and graduation parties. Supposedly 50% is from people under 30.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Interesting article "How Exactly Do You Catch Covid-19? There Is a Growing Consensus" from the Wall Street Journal. They say that the major culprit is close-up, person-to-person interactions for extended periods. Poor ventilation, crowded rooms, people talking (or singing) loudly maximize the risk.

 

This means places like gyms, parties, conferences, churches, etc., are big hot spots.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-exactly-do-you-catch-covid-19-there-is-a-growing-consensus-11592317650?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR1n5XgMdBQmc8OeQB9GmQNS77QK4xJjTqYpx_L3CzzAPVPJbS5ZbFzwKN8

 

It's an interesting read.

Well, the contact tracing has shown much of the spread to be coming from bars and graduation parties. Supposedly 50% is from people under 30.

 

Which also explains why the percentage of hospitalizations is decreasing. Younger people are typically showing fewer symptoms, and have the immune systems to fight off serious issues for the most part. That isn't stopping the "COVID isn't a big deal" crowd from pointing to those hospitalization numbers to support their argument, though.

[homer]

Are you using nationwide data for decreased hospitalizations?

 

I would like to find data that excludes NY and NJ as they seem to be big outliers.

[JosephC]

Actually pretty surprised at some of the wording on the Department of Health's website in regards to the masks-

 

There may be a benefit to reducing asymptomatic transmission and reinforcing physical distancing from the use of face covers. However, face coverings may increase risk if users reduce their use of strong defenses, such as physical distancing and frequent hand washing, when using cloth face coverings.

 

Wearing a cloth face cover may be beneficial as it may help to protect others from germs you may be spreading without knowing it.

 

There is limited evidence to suggest that use of cloth face coverings by the public during a pandemic could help reduce disease transmission. Their primary role is to reduce the release of infectious particles into the air when someone speaks, coughs, or sneezes, including someone who has COVID-19 but feels well.

 

https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/protect.htm

Scroll to bottom of page and click the "Should I Wear a Cloth Mask?" link.

 

I wonder how long it will be until the powers-that-be come down on Palm and Evers and get this language changed. "May increase risk." "May be beneficial as it may." "Limited evidence." Don't they know that the face mask concept will get businesses open and get us revenue....oh, ahh, wait...we mean SAVE THE WORLD! They are not following the narrative!

 

Pretty sick of the latest wave of media fear-mongering. Yes, it's gone crazy in the south, so crazy that we now have 2.7 million confirmed cases in a country with a population over 331 million (look out now, we are 80% of the way to a whopping 1% of the population being infected).

I dont see any issues with these statements. The first one is saying it wont be much help if you feel like the mask is enough. The second one is saying it could help others from catching it from you if you are unknowingly sick, but it's not guaranteed. And the third statement is, I'm assuming, talking about how while a cloth mask isnt medical grade so it may not do much, but it should stop, or at least greatly reduce, the water particles that could contain the virus. None of these statements are contradictory.

 

There is nothing wrong with these statements. I applaud Palm and Evers for having this on the Department of Health's website. Why is the majority of the media completely ignoring statements like "may be beneficial as it may" "limited evidence" and most importantly "may increase risk?" and running wild with the mask narrative after the government told them for months that masks have no benefit.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Are you using nationwide data for decreased hospitalizations?

 

I would like to find data that excludes NY and NJ as they seem to be big outliers.

 

I was just looking at Wisconsin's numbers.

[homer]

Are you using nationwide data for decreased hospitalizations?

 

I would like to find data that excludes NY and NJ as they seem to be big outliers.

 

I was just looking at Wisconsin's numbers.

 

Ah, gotcha.

[tmwiese55]

I want to say as of like 3ish days ago something like 16 states had been showing an increase in week over week hospitalizations, and the 3-4 main talked about hotspots were significant percents. I'd guess % of positive cases that end in hospitalizations are lower now though, but I've never seen that stat used anywhere. It's just logical they'd be finding way more mild cases now than 2-3 months ago.

 

I'd guess that's the one big positive to hope for right now though is that not nearly as many deaths come from this new surge due to that point. Each day that goes by makes me less optimistic though. And still at the numbers of infections going on it still seems the total number will be bad. As in, even if the %s are way better than the initial run (due to finding more mild cases and likely that we're protecting older people better now) at these total numbers (and likely more exponential growth coming) there will still be large total numbers involved to burden some medical systems and still a large number of deaths that most people aren't comfortable with seeing.

[homer]

I want to say as of like 3ish days ago something like 16 states had been showing an increase in week over week hospitalizations, and the 3-4 main talked about hotspots were significant percents. I'd guess % of positive cases that end in hospitalizations are lower now though, but I've never seen that stat used anywhere. It's just logical they'd be finding way more mild cases now than 2-3 months ago.

 

I'd guess that's the one big positive to hope for right now though is that not nearly as many deaths come from this new surge due to that point. Each day that goes by makes me less optimistic though. And still at the numbers of infections going on it still seems the total number will be bad. As in, even if the %s are way better than the initial run (due to finding more mild cases and likely that we're protecting older people better now) at these total numbers (and likely more exponential growth coming) there will still be large total numbers involved to burden some medical systems and still a large number of deaths that most people aren't comfortable with seeing.

 

The % positive cases that ends in hospitalizations over time would be a great stat to see.

 

It's obvious the overall fatality rate is going down (even excluding NY/NJ) most likely due to the lowered age of the infected and a majority of the rest of society probably being very cautious. I realize death is a lagging indicator but I'm hopeful it doesn't spike too much even in the areas where we are seeing a big jump in cases. I'm very confident it won't get up to NY/NJ levels.

[LouisEly]

Are you using nationwide data for decreased hospitalizations?

 

I would like to find data that excludes NY and NJ as they seem to be big outliers.

 

See the link in my post above (and below):

 

All of the data for all of the states and countries reporting, plus projections:

 

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

 

Interesting that even with the recent spikes, they are not projecting the daily total number of deaths to rise for the next couple of weeks.

[adambr2]

Now hydroxychloroquine is good again.

 

"Masks don't do any good protecting you from the virus. Wait, yes they do. Definitely wear a mask always." "Hydroxychoroquine looks like a promising treatment. Actually no, don't take it, it actually makes you more likely to die from COVID. No wait, we just don't know enough to say that conclusively. Actually wait, it's significantly helpful."

 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/07/02/michigan-henry-ford-health-study-finds-hydroxychloroquine-lowers-covid-19-death-rate/5365090002/

 

It gets hard to "trust the experts" when the information we've received from March until now has been constantly conflicting.

[owbc]

Now hydroxychloroquine is good again.

 

"Masks don't do any good protecting you from the virus. Wait, yes they do. Definitely wear a mask always." "Hydroxychoroquine looks like a promising treatment. Actually no, don't take it, it actually makes you more likely to die from COVID. No wait, we just don't know enough to say that conclusively. Actually wait, it's significantly helpful."

 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/07/02/michigan-henry-ford-health-study-finds-hydroxychloroquine-lowers-covid-19-death-rate/5365090002/

 

It gets hard to "trust the experts" when the information we've received from March until now has been constantly conflicting.

 

What does a news article about one study at one hospital have anything to do with what the experts say? Are the experts saying "Now hydroxychloroquine is good again.". No, they're not.

[adambr2]

Now hydroxychloroquine is good again.

 

"Masks don't do any good protecting you from the virus. Wait, yes they do. Definitely wear a mask always." "Hydroxychoroquine looks like a promising treatment. Actually no, don't take it, it actually makes you more likely to die from COVID. No wait, we just don't know enough to say that conclusively. Actually wait, it's significantly helpful."

 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/07/02/michigan-henry-ford-health-study-finds-hydroxychloroquine-lowers-covid-19-death-rate/5365090002/

 

It gets hard to "trust the experts" when the information we've received from March until now has been constantly conflicting.

 

What does a news article about one study at one hospital have anything to do with what the experts say? Are the experts saying "Now hydroxychloroquine is good again.". No, they're not.

 

That wasn't really my point at all. I wasn't saying it was unanimous. I don't expect any drug to have unanimous backing from all medical experts for a long time.

 

I was saying that information from various experts regarding numerous COVID-19 information has been in constant conflict for months (and yes, a peer reviewed Henry Ford Health system backed study published in a reputable medical journal qualifies as "expert").

[sveumrules]

Now hydroxychloroquine is good again.

 

"Masks don't do any good protecting you from the virus. Wait, yes they do. Definitely wear a mask always." "Hydroxychoroquine looks like a promising treatment. Actually no, don't take it, it actually makes you more likely to die from COVID. No wait, we just don't know enough to say that conclusively. Actually wait, it's significantly helpful."

 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/07/02/michigan-henry-ford-health-study-finds-hydroxychloroquine-lowers-covid-19-death-rate/5365090002/

 

It gets hard to "trust the experts" when the information we've received from March until now has been constantly conflicting.

 

From my admittedly little understanding, hydroxychloroquine is already out in the world for anyone to incorporate into a treatment if they so choose.

 

If it is actually helpful, it would then presumably be much cheaper (& maybe even more effective) than the $3,200 Gilead Remdesivir treatment course.

 

Though I can't imagine the government or the health care industry would ever chase profit over the best interests of public health.

[CheezWizHed]

I would say that people running that study could be considered experts; it is a professional health care organization. Or did you mean other experts? The WHO? CDC? Mayo Clinic? Johns Hopkins? No one is really unanimous here. Lots of information in a short period of time that conflicts doesn't help people gain confidence in health recommendations if studies keep conflicting with each other.

 

At least 4 of 5 dentists still recommend Trident.

[adambr2]

"Experts" to me is just a general term encompassing medical scientists and doctors who specialize in infectious diseases, respected medical journals and peer reviewed studies. But I'm sure everyone has their own definitions, which I'd generally be flexible on as long as it doesn't include A) Politicians, or B) Your Facebook friends.

[igor67]

If people give themselves a moment they are actually rather familiar with this type of back and forth in the literature. Think of health/ nutrition science news stories. There are some additional complications like a large amount of vested interested funded studies in nutrition, and it being incredibly difficult to do double blind controlled type studies that make that field even worse at the back and forth. With these studies being primarily statistically designed the large number of studies actually increases the chances of getting 'outlier' type studies just by random chance. The large number of studies rapidly released directly to preprints also probably increases this type of back and forth noise. You might have noticed that I almost always seem a little hesitant sounding when posting about single studies. Some strategies for helping incorporate news like this:

 

1) Verifying that people involved are qualified and respectable. A number of the things to look for have come up before.

2) Sample size and good design like double blind.

3) What was the consensus before (if there was one)? How strong was the consensus?

4) What is the theory/ mechanism of action?

5) How well does the new idea mesh with existing theory/ how well supported is that theory?

 

The last 3 points can be tricky in areas that are less familiar, but very helpful in preventing you from feeling like experts are just constantly changing their mind (they aren't). When it comes to masks for example while the respiratory droplets where probably a newer idea to many of us, their role in spreading some diseases was well established. Similarly the method by which improvised masks (not the N95's) work is very consistent with the impact of humidity on decreasing the spread of other seasonal respiratory diseases. The only real question at the beginning was to what extent is Covid spread directly through the air vs. surfaces.

Similarly the majority of work indicates hydroxychloroquine does not seem to have a positive impact and much of it has been negative enough to force early stoppage of studies. How it would act protectively has always been a stretch at best, whereas other things like Remdesivir clearly target viral replication or other reports of potential benefits with anti-inflammatory drugs tie into the developing understanding that the runaway inflammation tends to be the biggest culprit of damage and death.

[sveumrules]

But the authors of the trial wrote that the drug did not prevent all deaths.

 

"Given high mortality despite the use of remdesivir, it is clear that treatment with an anti-viral drug alone is not likely to be sufficient," they said.

 

About 7.1 percent of patients given remdesivir in the trial group died within 14 days—compared with 11.9 percent in the placebo group.

 

However, the result is just below the statistical reliability threshold, meaning it could be down to chance rather than the capability of the drug.

 

So if I'm following this all correctly (very possible I'm not), 70 million in taxpayer funds were used to develop a treatment of questionable efficacy which the US goverment subsequently ordered almost the entire supply of to sell back to infected taxpayers at 3,200 a pop...and it might even kind of work.

[LouisEly]

So if I'm following this all correctly (very possible I'm not), 70 million in taxpayer funds were used to develop a treatment of questionable efficacy which the US goverment subsequently ordered almost the entire supply of to sell back to infected taxpayers at 3,200 a pop...and it might even kind of work.

No, you're not following this correctly. Remdesivir was developed more than a decade ago as a Hepatitis-C treatment (didn't work well), and then studied as an Ebola treatment.

 

It takes years to develop a drug, so they are testing available drugs already on the market that have anti-viral or anti-inflammatory effects with the potential to counteract some of the known or hypothesized pathways of the disease.

 

As a FYI, the "cost" (before rebates, discounts, etc.) of an average Hepatitis-C drug is over $50K for about 8-12 weeks of treatment.