COVID-19 Thread

[TURBO]

What does PITA stand for?

 

First word is Pain

 

ahhhh, thanks... just couldn't come up with that on my own.

[tmwiese55]

Great post on the long one FTZ. I'd thought of the timeline thing and for the most part I ruled it out for a few reasons, first that it's been so long that we've had plenty of time to get in check. Obviously that's just a feeling thing with no backing, but after almost 4 months the policies have had time to get in place no matter where. But that's where my head went, by no means saying it's correct. Second was that both of the the two countries I grabbed have basically been in the very low ballpark I mentioned going back to mid to late May. Third, the fact that we had that advantage to get ahead of this and didn't is actually a bad thing imo, not an excuse. Again, IDK if any of that's right but that's what went in my head when I thought of that issue. For overall testing, as of 2-3 weeks ago EU was basically testing the same percent of population as us (with us getting like 8x as many cases per pop and that was before the number got even worse the last 2 weeks). That's what started me on the wormhole, that info was all out there for testing and cases 1-2 weeks back and then I thought to look at deaths today and couldn't find it. Those rates could've easily change by now, but that's what I basing off.

 

Your 2nd paragraph is the billion dollar question, fingers crossed. Kinda agree with your guess that we're gonna maintain in this 5-1000 per day window a while. And that's kind of what I was getting at, this narrative push is trying to act like that's ok or to normalize it. But we're seeing much better elsewhere, we can do better imo and this plateau we've been on a while should not just be shrugged and accepted when clearly whatever these other countries implemented seems to have much better results. Which makes me agree with OWBCs post here as well. Overall though, good post, I don't disagree with anything you said. Just adding info to my train of thought on it.

[DHonks]

Have seen the recent talking point is how deaths haven't spiked yet. I think I said a few pages back too which we're all hoping holds true for a number of reasons such as old people better protected now, earlier testing to catch cases, finding more mild cases, better treatment, etc. There is a lot of reasons this should not go up near the rates of before. But, with the hospitalizations going up in many places you'd think some increase comes soon. Hopefully it's not drastic though. If it is I'm sure everyone pushing that talking point now will quickly acknowledge.

 

but it did lead me down a hole trying to find EU comps on deaths per day now and I couldn't find it. As opposed to the New Cases graphs of EU vs USA that have been everywhere lately, so it was kind of frustrating and I thought odd so it made me curious if something was up trying to make us look bad. So I just grabbed France/Germany as bigger wealthier countries and kind of the flagships of Europe. France had 18 deaths on the 3rd. they're roughly 5x smaller than us so equivalent of 100 here. Germany had 9 on the 3rd, they're roughly 4x smaller, so equivalent of 36. I did not look at any other countries so I did not cherry pick good numbers (or bad, IDK how they comp to other europe countries). USA had 660 on the 3rd. So keep that in mind if/when you hear this narrative pushed this week. The narrative seems to essentially be trying to normalize setting a low bar and normalizing our comparatively high deaths. Of course one would think this continues to widen with how many more new cases we're getting than EU. If someone has whole EU graph or numbers feel free to add, I could not find it.

 

Keep in mind the initial significant outbreak occurred across Europe roughly 3-4 weeks before it happened in the US.

 

Not really. I was tracking it in late February and early March with my AP Human Geography class. The epicenter of Europe was Italy, and we were statistically about 10 days behind them.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Have seen the recent talking point is how deaths haven't spiked yet. I think I said a few pages back too which we're all hoping holds true for a number of reasons such as old people better protected now, earlier testing to catch cases, finding more mild cases, better treatment, etc. There is a lot of reasons this should not go up near the rates of before. But, with the hospitalizations going up in many places you'd think some increase comes soon. Hopefully it's not drastic though. If it is I'm sure everyone pushing that talking point now will quickly acknowledge.

 

but it did lead me down a hole trying to find EU comps on deaths per day now and I couldn't find it. As opposed to the New Cases graphs of EU vs USA that have been everywhere lately, so it was kind of frustrating and I thought odd so it made me curious if something was up trying to make us look bad. So I just grabbed France/Germany as bigger wealthier countries and kind of the flagships of Europe. France had 18 deaths on the 3rd. they're roughly 5x smaller than us so equivalent of 100 here. Germany had 9 on the 3rd, they're roughly 4x smaller, so equivalent of 36. I did not look at any other countries so I did not cherry pick good numbers (or bad, IDK how they comp to other europe countries). USA had 660 on the 3rd. So keep that in mind if/when you hear this narrative pushed this week. The narrative seems to essentially be trying to normalize setting a low bar and normalizing our comparatively high deaths. Of course one would think this continues to widen with how many more new cases we're getting than EU. If someone has whole EU graph or numbers feel free to add, I could not find it.

 

Keep in mind the initial significant outbreak occurred across Europe roughly 3-4 weeks before it happened in the US.

 

Probably splitting hairs - I'd state that peak US outbreak from a deaths perspective was mid-late April and peak specifically for Italy was late March...although it's tough looking at individual European countries compared to the US as a whole because of both population and geography. From what I recall Italy led the way in terms of it being Europe's initial ground zero, but then Spain and Belgium/France weren't far behind them followed by Britain. Once it was apparent all the travel ban nonsense wasn't enacted quickly enough from Europe at the end of February, there was no stopping it popping up across the US.

 

Not really. I was tracking it in late February and early March with my AP Human Geography class. The epicenter of Europe was Italy, and we were statistically about 10 days behind them.

 

Probably splitting hairs but you're most likely correct - for some reason I recall Italy getting bad sooner than that in terms of concerns with hospital capacity, not necessarily daily death tallies which Italy had initial trouble getting accurate numbers out due to their system being overwhelmed. I'd state that peak US outbreak from a deaths perspective was mid-late April and peak specifically for Italy was late March...although it's tough looking at individual European countries compared to the US as a whole because of both population and geography. From what I recall Italy led the way in terms of it being Europe's initial ground zero, but then Spain and Belgium/France weren't far behind them followed by Britain - with those countries paralleling NY/NJ's progression. Once it was apparent all the travel ban nonsense wasn't enacted quickly enough from Europe at the end of February, there was no stopping it popping up across the US - particularly in the primary travel hubs to/from Europe.

[homer]

I think the next couple of weeks will be very telling as to whether or not this lower fatality rate is the real deal or not. It's been roughly three weeks since the big case spikes started in the Southern part of the country.

[CheezWizHed]

There is a lot of logical reasons why the fatality rate is lower too, however. With the increase of testing, people that aren't as severe or not showing any symptoms at all are being tested (thus increasing the denominator of the rate calculation). Plus, medical professionals know how to treat it better than before (i.e. which medicines to use or not, intubating later instead of early), which is decreasing the deadliness of it all (i.e. reducing the numerator of the rate calculation).

 

I tend to think that the fatality rate really won't spike just because cases are spiking. Both deaths and cases will go up, but that shouldn't really effect the rate calculation. The only way that would make sense is if the virus mutates and treatments must change to match it or it becomes more deadly.

[tmwiese55]

The rate/% will for sure be lower, or, well, we'd be shocked if it's not. The talking point I started down was about the total numbers. So the question kind of becomes will the rate/% drop enough to balance for the high number of cases to keep from a higher deaths number per day. I'd guess a general keeping in the 500-1000 area we've been a while with maybe a marginal increase. But my whole point was that we shouldn't just accept that as good enough, its clear we can do better. Doubt and hope we don't start seeing 2500/day again. But as each days go by my optimism wanes.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The minimal amount of news I've seen has indicated the number of cases going up is much more highly concentrated with younger people than at the start. That alone would cause fatalities % to drop.

[CheezWizHed]

True. Plus the areas where people are at high risk (e.g. hospitals, retirement homes) are still on high alert and very restricted. A friend of mine has finally gotten to see his mom in her retirement home for the first time since everything shut down. And it was pretty controlled still; outside, 6' apart, masks, cleaned visit area before and after.

[FVBrewerFan]

True. Plus the areas where people are at high risk (e.g. hospitals, retirement homes) are still on high alert and very restricted. A friend of mine has finally gotten to see his mom in her retirement home for the first time since everything shut down. And it was pretty controlled still; outside, 6' apart, masks, cleaned visit area before and after.

 

What concerns me is all you hear about is nursing homes. Yet far more elderly people live in senior housing and assisted living facilities, where the rules seem to vary widely.

[homer]

True. Plus the areas where people are at high risk (e.g. hospitals, retirement homes) are still on high alert and very restricted. A friend of mine has finally gotten to see his mom in her retirement home for the first time since everything shut down. And it was pretty controlled still; outside, 6' apart, masks, cleaned visit area before and after.

 

The other thing to consider is that with increased testing people are getting diagnosed much earlier than they were in April when you pretty much had to be ready to be admitted to the hospital in order to get a test. So where the point of diagnosis to the point of fatality timeframe was very short back then it's gotten longer now...in theory anyway.

[SoCalBrewfan]

Sweden's model of limited restrictions has not been successful. They have had more deaths per capita than the US and many times the rate of deaths as their nordic neighbors Norway, Finland, and Denmark. And their economy doesn't seem to be substantially better off:

 

“They literally gained nothing,” said Jacob F. Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “It’s a self-inflicted wound, and they have no economic gains.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-coronavirus.html

 

Also the US does not have a particularly high rate of testing:

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/international-comparison

 

The US in in there at 63 per 100K, near Germany and Estonia. The outlier countries do 2x as many per 100K or more.

 

If Arizona and Florida were countries, they would be the two worst outbreaks in the world right now in new cases per capita, at 3.3K and 2.7K per million, respectively. The highest countries on this metric are Oman, Bahrain, and Qatar, 1.7K-2.2K per million, where there are apparently outbreaks among foreign workers.

 

It should also be noted that just letting things ride and hoping for herd immunity has the additional risk that the long-term effects of COVID are not well known. Deaths are not the only important metric; many people who recover suffer greatly and it is yet unknown what long term damage they might duffer. My next door neighbor had it, he's fiftyish and healthy but said he was almost totally out of commission for two months. And not to be too grim, but there's some new reports of potential longer term neurological damage:

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-brains/scientists-warn-of-potential-wave-of-covid-linked-brain-damage-idUSKBN24837S

[stoutdude04]

Great point socal. I think we get so caught up in looking at positive numbers and death rates that we gloss over some of those other potential negatives.

 

If I'm unfortunate enough to catch covid...I dont think I'm going to die, but I am concerned about my 1 year old daughter and pregnant wife. Will it hurt their lungs going forward? Will there be any other things to happen? That's what concerns me most.

[3and2Fastball]

I think that sending kids back to school in the Fall is completely insane. The longterm effects for those who survive Covid are not known...

[tmwiese55]

Great post SoCal. Yea school is rapidly approaching and at this point it doesn't look promising. And the politicizing of the fight on that is going to be brutal to sit through. Schools in fall was my whole goal way at the beginning or when deciding on re-opening plans. Wish we'd bit the bullet for longer to get the numbers way lower than we did, but here we are.

[FVBrewerFan]

I think that sending kids back to school in the Fall is completely insane. The longterm effects for those who survive Covid are not known...

 

I think it would be completely insane NOT to send them back. The long term psychological and physical effects from children not socializing for many months up to several years are not known.

[owbc]

I think that sending kids back to school in the Fall is completely insane. The longterm effects for those who survive Covid are not known...

 

I think it would be completely insane NOT to send them back. The long term psychological and physical effects from children not socializing for many months up to several years are not known.

 

They have to come up with something and it has to be 5 days a week. My niece is so much happier now that she is at summer camp. Even if they just supervise the kids running around outside all day it will be better than nothing. Nobody in the family has the time or expertise to teach 3rd grade to her.

[homer]

There are the kids, which are probably very low risk for any long term issues, and then there are the teachers, administrative and janitorial staff, etc. LIttle kids especially are walking disease distributors. I think a hybrid solution could probably work. Of course, that means you have a computer/internet at home and someone to be there with the kid.

[TURBO]

I think that sending kids back to school in the Fall is completely insane. The longterm effects for those who survive Covid are not known...

 

The long term psychological and physical effects from children not socializing for many months up to several years are not known.

 

Not picking a side here, being a teacher, I still am on the fence, but if you think kids are not socializing with other kids, drive around a little bit. They are everyplace. Big kids, little kids, kids of all ages are with each other socially.

[Fear The Chorizo]

One thing that is frustrating about trying to tie daily death tallies to recent testing surges is that there are plenty of newly reported deaths that are incredibly backdated due to lags in death certificate/coroner reporting...many deaths being reported in early July related to COVID actually occurred weeks, if not months ago. We'll have a hard time making sense of the end result of the current case surge among younger people in terms of deaths until we get into August, most likely.

 

Related to schools, no in person school in the fall should come with the necessary measure of furloughing a vast majority of school teacher/staff/administrators for the sake of trying to maintain budget sanity for all the economic damage not having in person school would lead to. How the hell is an elementary school kid in the heart of Chicago going to get any sort of education (maybe a bad example, as unfortunately they likely were getting crummy schooling to begin with)? There were huge percentages of kids across the country in urban and rural areas who never even logged into their e-learning accounts once after schools were shut down last spring. How is any elementary school aged child going to be successful heading to a new grade with a different teacher that doesn't get an opportunity to learn who they are in person? Talk about an achievement gap...

 

There is plenty of evidence pointing to children, especially the little kids who are walking disease distributors, not possessing the viral load capacity to readily transmit COVID-19 to adults. Most of Europe has had schools open for months, even if at a limited capacity or schedule. Elementary and middle schools absolutely need to be open this fall. Colleges and perhaps high schools can continue operating haphazardly through the internet, but that approach has no chance of working well with young children in households where parents need to work or in households that are ill-equipped for e-learning no matter what the districts try to provide.

 

Not picking a side here, being a teacher, I still am on the fence, but if you think kids are not socializing with other kids, drive around a little bit. They are everyplace. Big kids, little kids, kids of all ages are with each other socially.

 

That's commonly referred to as summer break this time of year. There's alot to be said about interacting socially in a school setting, too instead of being shuttered inside their house glued to an Ipad trying to plug an assignment into the Seesaw app - school settings give kids the opportunity to get acquainted with others who don't live in their neighborhood or are hand-picked by their parents to associate with. Seeing kids congregating in public now also should point to the fact that sending that same pack of children back to school shouldn't be viewed as any higher risk than what they've been up to socially for months - I'm sure there are teachers/admins/janitors that are indeed high risk and have yet to leave their home or interact with anyone closer than 6' from them...for those people certain measures definitely need to be enacted to protect them. Completely shutting in person school systems down should not be one of those options. I'd much rather pay them their salary to stay home and find ways to support their classes' curriculum remotely while their class is actually present in school. And don't mistake the fact there are many more teachers who have been out and about since March and really do want to get back doing what they love doing in a classroom setting.

[CheezWizHed]

Sweden's model of limited restrictions has not been successful. They have had more deaths per capita than the US and many times the rate of deaths as their nordic neighbors Norway, Finland, and Denmark. And their economy doesn't seem to be substantially better off:

 

“They literally gained nothing,” said Jacob F. Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “It’s a self-inflicted wound, and they have no economic gains.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-coronavirus.html

 

 

I'm not defending Sweden, but just wanted to say that it is too soon to know for sure.

 

I've watched their approach just to contrast ours (not like I have any power to change anything). They certainly have had a much worse impact early. Their deaths are 2x the US per capita (approximately). But as of a week ago, their daily death rate was at zero. They were banking to go through the worst of it first and reap the benefits later. Not sure if it would work, but you can't say it didn't work in the middle when their plan was for the long term.

 

Ironically, I went to look at their current death rate at the same site I had used before... it is no longer available. Not sure why, but it was a curious issue.

[Outlander]

I think that sending kids back to school in the Fall is completely insane. The longterm effects for those who survive Covid are not known...

 

The long term psychological and physical effects from children not socializing for many months up to several years are not known.

 

Not picking a side here, being a teacher, I still am on the fence, but if you think kids are not socializing with other kids, drive around a little bit. They are everyplace. Big kids, little kids, kids of all ages are with each other socially.

I see it somewhat but not anywhere near as before. My guess would be the majority of kids have minimal to no activity with other kids outside their immediate family. I have a son playing tournament baseball but outside of that has not been around other kids.

[owbc]

My concern is more that inequality is being amplified by a situation that is straining resources. The schools that will struggle most to reopen are the same ones where the parents will struggle the most to find alternative care options.

 

I think the government has the obligation to not progress with reopening as a whole if schools are not able to provide care 5 days/week. If it isn't safe to have kids in school than it isn't safe to open anything else up more than it currently is. If teachers are required to be in school 5 days/week and their kids can only be at school 2-3 days/week, what are they going to do on the other days? Same for any other parent that has to go back to 40 hour/week in-person work due to reopening. That's an unacceptable outcome.

 

Some of the early promises back in March such as childcare for essential employees never materialized, or it was not designed in a way that was actually helpful to many of them.

[stoutdude04]

In our district they have sent out surveys and are going to let parents choose. 5 days a week in person or virtual. The plan for now is no hybrid with the idea that we may need to go all virtual.

 

As far as kids socializing...I see the same kids socializing as I would have. I really dont think kids play much anymore. /get off my lawn old man comment

[jerichoholicninja]

As with everything else the last few months: there is no right answer, only answers that are varying degrees of bad.

 

My 4 year old needs to go back to school this fall. Preschool was his first time being around kids his own age and he loved it and needs it. He's sick of being around mom, dad, and grandmas, and we are honestly sick of being around him too.