COVID-19 Thread [V2.0]

[PeaveyFury]

Further info on the actions Japan actually took to clamp down on the virus:

 

Based on this scientific finding, Japan decided to prioritize preventing clusters from spawning new clusters by retroactively tracing the chain of transmission. Under this strategy, the Japanese government conducts rigorous contact tracing; therefore, given its finite testing capacity, Japan’s testing operations are focused on potential and identified clusters as opposed to mass testing.

Besides that, under Japan’s Infectious Disease Act, at the very early stage of the outbreak, any person testing positive for COVID-19, whether symptomatic or not, was required in principle to be hospitalized at a medical facility

 

And regarding their testing policy:

Japan’s unique testing policy has been criticized both within and outside of the country, despite the low number of deaths in this country. There is a concern that the actual status of the epidemic in Japan may be inadequately captured, primarily because of the small number of PCR tests. However, compared to other countries, the positivity rate in Japan (the number of positive PRC test results as a percentage of total PCR tests performed) is relatively low at 5.5 percent (compared to 6.0 percent in Germany, 17.4 percent in the United States, and 26.9 percent in the United Kingdom), indicating that Japan has been adequately detecting COVID-19 cases.

 

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/06/28/commentary/japan-commentary/japans-pragmatic-approach-covid-19-testing/

[OldSchoolSnapper]

There is no way to explain the completely insane disparity between WI and Japan by using a testing or comorbidities argument. I would just as easily say WI is full of people who avoid a test for the sole reason that they cannot miss work for 2, 4, 6 or 8 weeks.

 

I think the health of Japanese people was absolutely significant. But it does not account for the disparity between it and WI. Sacrifice is embedded in the culture and they would ostracize people exhibiting the kind of defiance that is rampant in the US.

 

I am closer to FTC's general outlook than my last few posts sound, but this idea that the spot we're in was inevitable is just not true. We could have done better. I think we would still be under capacity limits and masking, but we could have kept a lot of people alive.

[tmwiese55]

"this idea that the spot we're in was inevitable is just not true. We could have done better. I think we would still be under capacity limits and masking, but we could have kept a lot of people alive."

 

This is basically where I'm at too. Seems to summarize it pretty well to me.

[PeaveyFury]

I think we would still be under capacity limits and masking

 

For the record, I also agree with this. I don't think that we'd be anywhere close to done with this, and I also agree that a vaccine is the true end of all of it. But I'm confident that things would be in a better place now if more was done over the past 6-7 months.

[owbc]

What a large percentage of people DO believe is the concern isn't worth changing your entire life for a year, or maybe two.

 

This is the perspective that I don't really understand. Which guidelines are life changing? I can't think of anything I've done recently that feels like my life has changed and I've traveled, dined indoors, and been in social gatherings while following the rules.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

What a large percentage of people DO believe is the concern isn't worth changing your entire life for a year, or maybe two.

 

This is the perspective that I don't really understand. Which guidelines are life changing? I can't think of anything I've done recently that feels like my life has changed and I've traveled, dined indoors, and been in social gatherings while following the rules.

 

I just canceled a trip to NM in November due to their 14-day quarantine for high-risk state visitors. I am almost definitely not taking a planned trip to Japan (probably can't if I wanted to) in March. I think generally speaking, not THAT much has changed locally, at least nothing I would categorize as life-changing.

 

As an aside, my mother passed away in March and we have not services due to her family being on the East Coast, mostly 65+, and not able/willing to travel easily. I'm sure there are many instances of that sort of thing.

 

On a larger scale this thing is killing many businesses, big and small. My employer has been decimated and laid off 1,000 people since the start. Small retail businesses are getting crushed. Travel-related jobs have been obliterated. If you are safely employed, the overall impact has been fairly minimal. But, there are always people who aren't you.

[owbc]

What a large percentage of people DO believe is the concern isn't worth changing your entire life for a year, or maybe two.

 

This is the perspective that I don't really understand. Which guidelines are life changing? I can't think of anything I've done recently that feels like my life has changed and I've traveled, dined indoors, and been in social gatherings while following the rules.

 

I just canceled a trip to NM in November due to their 14-day quarantine for high-risk state visitors. I am almost definitely not taking a planned trip to Japan (probably can't if I wanted to) in March. I think generally speaking, not THAT much has changed locally, at least nothing I would categorize as life-changing.

 

As an aside, my mother passed away in March and we have not services due to her family being on the East Coast, mostly 65+, and not able/willing to travel easily. I'm sure there are many instances of that sort of thing.

 

On a larger scale this thing is killing many businesses, big and small. My employer has been decimated and laid off 1,000 people since the start. Small retail businesses are getting crushed. Travel-related jobs have been obliterated. If you are safely employed, the overall impact has been fairly minimal. But, there are always people who aren't you.

 

I should be clear that there are major life-changing consequences of the pandemic, as you point out, but the part I'm not understanding is the connection between the current set of government regulations and the life-changing consequences. From what I can the civil disobedience is really quite minor...i.e. there is little to no difference in day-to-day life between the places with low and high compliance to mask/social distancing guidelines. And everyone seems to accept that masks reduce virus spread. So I feel like I'm not understanding the reason for not following these rules besides petty political disagreements.

 

Sorry about your mother and not being able to properly say goodbye. I worry every day about my grandmother who is in the Milwaukee area with my relatives trying their best to keep COVID away from her. It's a big part of the reason that the poor compliance for regulations in WI makes me so angry.

[tmwiese55]

The business going under is a big deal. Adding that properly taking care of the small businesses is one of the things we could have done better. It's not specifically a health aspect, but if those businesses were taken care of better in the bill they wouldn't be in the dire straits now and/or needed to push to open sooner. Trillions of dollars spent and it didn't get to the right spots. I could go on a tangent on the topic of how that money was used but probably wouldn't be productive to the convo.

[reillymcshane]

I don't think we'll really see and understand the effect the pandemic has had on people economically for another year. It's not just businesses closing and industries failing - which are huge. There will be a ripple effect that could be brutal.

 

Tons of people on the fringe of economical stability are losing so many jobs. Waiters/waitresses, cab drivers, retail workers - these workers are being pushed into unemployment. They have little to no savings. And their families are often not wealthy.

 

And women have been hit hard by the pandemic. It's been women who have quit their jobs - far more than men - to stay home with the kids.

 

Add in the businesses that have closed, and the jobs that have been cut as companies re-tool. It's going to hit people hard. And, unfortunately, it will hurt the people most vulnerable as they dip into their savings, have to borrow to survive, and struggle to find good work that is saturated with lots of people trying to get back into the workforce.

[FVBrewerFan]

I don't think we'll really see and understand the effect the pandemic has had on people economically for another year. It's not just businesses closing and industries failing - which are huge. There will be a ripple effect that could be brutal.

 

Tons of people on the fringe of economical stability are losing so many jobs. Waiters/waitresses, cab drivers, retail workers - these workers are being pushed into unemployment. They have little to no savings. And their families are often not wealthy.

 

And women have been hit hard by the pandemic. It's been women who have quit their jobs - far more than men - to stay home with the kids.

 

Add in the businesses that have closed, and the jobs that have been cut as companies re-tool. It's going to hit people hard. And, unfortunately, it will hurt the people most vulnerable as they dip into their savings, have to borrow to survive, and struggle to find good work that is saturated with lots of people trying to get back into the workforce.

 

Good points. We also won't see the effects on physical health for at least another year, and mental health much longer than that. Many people are terrified to leave their home to see their doctor or a specialist. Or a therapist. All we see and hear from the media is armageddon, so there's no sense of proportion in how serious it is.

[homer]

While it's not armageddon we're probably looking at somewhere around a quarter of a million dead, we have activated a field hospital to deal with excess cases in Wisconsin, and some cities have had to deploy freezer trucks to handle all the dead bodies. So it's serious.

[jerichoholicninja]

I don't think we'll really see and understand the effect the pandemic has had on people economically for another year. It's not just businesses closing and industries failing - which are huge. There will be a ripple effect that could be brutal.

 

Tons of people on the fringe of economical stability are losing so many jobs. Waiters/waitresses, cab drivers, retail workers - these workers are being pushed into unemployment. They have little to no savings. And their families are often not wealthy.

 

And women have been hit hard by the pandemic. It's been women who have quit their jobs - far more than men - to stay home with the kids.

 

Add in the businesses that have closed, and the jobs that have been cut as companies re-tool. It's going to hit people hard. And, unfortunately, it will hurt the people most vulnerable as they dip into their savings, have to borrow to survive, and struggle to find good work that is saturated with lots of people trying to get back into the workforce.

 

Good points. We also won't see the effects on physical health for at least another year, and mental health much longer than that. Many people are terrified to leave their home to see their doctor or a specialist. Or a therapist. All we see and hear from the media is armageddon, so there's no sense of proportion in how serious it is.

 

The problem is you can't take a middle ground stance or else you're labeled a hoaxer who wants grandma to die.

[FVBrewerFan]

I don't think we'll really see and understand the effect the pandemic has had on people economically for another year. It's not just businesses closing and industries failing - which are huge. There will be a ripple effect that could be brutal.

 

Tons of people on the fringe of economical stability are losing so many jobs. Waiters/waitresses, cab drivers, retail workers - these workers are being pushed into unemployment. They have little to no savings. And their families are often not wealthy.

 

And women have been hit hard by the pandemic. It's been women who have quit their jobs - far more than men - to stay home with the kids.

 

Add in the businesses that have closed, and the jobs that have been cut as companies re-tool. It's going to hit people hard. And, unfortunately, it will hurt the people most vulnerable as they dip into their savings, have to borrow to survive, and struggle to find good work that is saturated with lots of people trying to get back into the workforce.

 

Good points. We also won't see the effects on physical health for at least another year, and mental health much longer than that. Many people are terrified to leave their home to see their doctor or a specialist. Or a therapist. All we see and hear from the media is armageddon, so there's no sense of proportion in how serious it is.

 

The problem is you can't take a middle ground stance or else you're labeled a hoaxer who wants grandma to die.

 

I have said that for months when we discuss this with family and friends. I wear a mask, even though in the scheme of things I don't think it helps much. Why? Because why not. And I live in an area where masks are about as common as a bunt in MLB. I go out, all the time, but I'm not going to bars, crowded restaurants, etc. I visit my elderly parents but I wear my mask, don't get near them, use saitizer before I go in, etc.

 

Look, 250,000 is a lot of people but it's really not statistically. Not when you consider a bad cold/flu season. Add in pneumonia, other causes of respiratory related deaths, and the delta isn't that wide, statistically. Not minimizing, just putting it in perspective.

[reillymcshane]

Regarding the mask debate, I guess if you just look at it with simple, common sense - it makes sense.

 

I mean, with a mask on, my spittle isn't flying out of my mouth nearly as much. That just seems pretty basic and straight forward right there.

 

Pre-COVID, when it was the flu season, if you felt sick, you washed your hands a lot, you turned away when you coughed, you didn't shake someone's hand, you kept your distance, you didn't go to work or church, you avoided nursing homes, etc., etc. Again, all this was stuff most people kept in mind during flu season every year. It's common sense.

 

The severity of COVID - and its ability to be asymptomatic - means you are trying to do the same things - and more. Masks seem like the simplest and easiest and least intrusive of all these things.

[PeaveyFury]

Look, 250,000 is a lot of people but it's really not statistically. Not when you consider a bad cold/flu season. Add in pneumonia, other causes of respiratory related deaths, and the delta isn't that wide, statistically. Not minimizing, just putting it in perspective.

 

And yet you ARE minimizing, while again citing the talking point of the week that is being used by those that wish to continue to try and downplay the severity of this pandemic which they have so badly misjudged since day 1. So, let's actually put things in perspective:

 

U.S. Flu Deaths by Year:

2010: 37,000

2011: 12,000

2012: 43,000

2013: 38,000

2014: 51,000

2015: 23,000

2016: 38,000

2017: 61,000

2018: 34,000

2019: 22,000

 

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

 

As a reminder, 2020 U.S. COVID Deaths: 212,000 and counting. For additional perspective, the H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic resulted in 12,469 U.S. deaths in 2009.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates_2009_h1n1.htm

 

So, not even factoring in the current absurdly bad spike in cases/hospitalizations as of yet, you're at 3.5x the deaths of a 'really bad' flu season.

 

Additionally, has anyone seen current estimates of what the death toll would currently be if the restrictions that were actually put in place hadn't been, and if we had treated this pandemic with the modest indifference that a flu season is? People were making the 'it's just the flu' argument waaaaay back in March, and the continued question in my mind is how much did the quarantine, etc (which again were met with complaining and hostility even way back then) actually help suppress the current numbers? And, obviously, how much better would the numbers be if people had actually done the minimal stuff that was asked of them over the past few months?

[jjfanec]

Look, 250,000 is a lot of people but it's really not statistically. Not when you consider a bad cold/flu season. Add in pneumonia, other causes of respiratory related deaths, and the delta isn't that wide, statistically. Not minimizing, just putting it in perspective.

 

And yet you ARE minimizing, while again citing the talking point of the week that is being used by those that wish to continue to try and downplay the severity of this pandemic which they have so badly misjudged since day 1. So, let's actually put things in perspective:

 

U.S. Flu Deaths by Year:

2010: 37,000

2011: 12,000

2012: 43,000

2013: 38,000

2014: 51,000

2015: 23,000

2016: 38,000

2017: 61,000

2018: 34,000

2019: 22,000

 

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

 

As a reminder, 2020 U.S. COVID Deaths: 212,000 and counting. For additional perspective, the H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic resulted in 12,469 U.S. deaths in 2009.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates_2009_h1n1.htm

 

So, not even factoring in the current absurdly bad spike in cases/hospitalizations as of yet, you're at 3.5x the deaths of a 'really bad' flu season.

 

Additionally, has anyone seen current estimates of what the death toll would currently be if the restrictions that were actually put in place hadn't been, and if we had treated this pandemic with the modest indifference that a flu season is? People were making the 'it's just the flu' argument waaaaay back in March, and the continued question in my mind is how much did the quarantine, etc (which again were met with complaining and hostility even way back then) actually help suppress the current numbers? And, obviously, how much better would the numbers be if people had actually done the minimal stuff that was asked of them over the past few months?

 

Such a great post. When our president says up to 100,000 people die a year from the flu but that number hasnt been over 61,000 we see how easily misinformation is flying around. If the numbers keep up as they are for covid-19 we are looking 250,000 or so deaths by the end of the year. That is more than all the flu deaths from 2014-2019. They are simply not comparable. I sympathize with people worrying about the economic fallout. That is a real discussion that needs to be had, but the way flu numbers are being used is disingenuous.

[tmwiese55]

Great post Peavey. It's much worse and that's with all the stuff we've done, it would multiples higher if we went on like normal this whole time. I have no idea how that is so hard to grasp but folks are just so dug in from 7 months ago.

 

Also for death tolls here and through the world keep in mind the excess death statistics. For all the minimizing, chances are many more are dead from this than the numbers show.

 

But with how this discussion started on the economics, that is going to be a big toll too. Eventually this is going to catch up to a lot of people, and eventually someone is going ot have pay for all this deficit spending. It would be nice to be able to discuss solutions, plans, ways to help, etc. To address these things doesn't mean one also has to minimize the reality or severity of the virus itself.

[homer]

 

I have said that for months when we discuss this with family and friends. I wear a mask, even though in the scheme of things I don't think it helps much. Why? Because why not. And I live in an area where masks are about as common as a bunt in MLB. I go out, all the time, but I'm not going to bars, crowded restaurants, etc. I visit my elderly parents but I wear my mask, don't get near them, use saitizer before I go in, etc.

.

 

I just want to say that I am glad you are doing these things.

[JosephC]

Evers = 25% capacity

 

City of Milwaukee = Ummm, no. 100% capacity with Milwaukee's magic checklist in place. Apparently magic checklist says sticking 4 times as many people in confined space is OK.

 

So much for the social distancing concept. We need your tax dollars, just put on that facemask and everything will be OK.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2020/10/07/milwaukee-enforce-existing-covid-19-order-not-new-evers-limits/5918062002/

 

Once the plan is approved, the bar or restaurant will be expected to abide by restrictions in its approved plan, not the sections of the city's order relating to those establishments. Those with plans in place can operate without the current 50% capacity limit.

 

As of Friday, the department had received 850 plans and approved 318.

 

"After review of both orders, the City of Milwaukee Health Department has determined that the Moving Milwaukee Forward Safely Order is more restrictive than Governor Evers’ Emergency Order #3, and that all businesses and individuals within the City of Milwaukee should continue to adhere to the Moving Milwaukee Forward Safely Order," the Health Department said in the statement.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Evers = 25% capacity

 

City of Milwaukee = Ummm, no. 100% capacity with Milwaukee's magic checklist in place. Apparently magic checklist says sticking 4 times as many people in confined space is OK.

 

So much for the social distancing concept. We need your tax dollars, just put on that facemask and everything will be OK.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2020/10/07/milwaukee-enforce-existing-covid-19-order-not-new-evers-limits/5918062002/

 

Once the plan is approved, the bar or restaurant will be expected to abide by restrictions in its approved plan, not the sections of the city's order relating to those establishments. Those with plans in place can operate without the current 50% capacity limit.

 

As of Friday, the department had received 850 plans and approved 318.

 

"After review of both orders, the City of Milwaukee Health Department has determined that the Moving Milwaukee Forward Safely Order is more restrictive than Governor Evers’ Emergency Order #3, and that all businesses and individuals within the City of Milwaukee should continue to adhere to the Moving Milwaukee Forward Safely Order," the Health Department said in the statement.

 

Have you actually compared the two orders? Even a cursory review of them plainly indicates that Milwaukee's is substantially more restrictive.

[JackNicholson1974]

I am a mask proponent. I listen to the Drs and Scientists. I trust experts. I socially distance. I "eat out" once or twice a week still but only take out since March...and guess what...I am completely sick and tired of worrying about getting COVID. I will never not where a mask while this pandemic persists, but I am almost to the point where I wouldnt mind getting it, just to get it over with so I can stop worrying about it every time my throat gets mildly sore.

[tmwiese55]

Certainly crosses my mind too as a young-ish person with no known health problems and the ability to easily work from home and not infect anyone else. But yea common sense then comes in that I'd just rather not deal with the headache of it all, and even if is less than a .5% chance I'd rather not. But it would be nice to have a few months where I know I'm good and can do a bit of traveling without risking it and/or feeling like one who's contributing to the spread by not listening.

 

But I'd sure like an easy/reliable antibody test to know if it has passed through. And of course that research (from what we talked about a couple weeks ago) to keep going on how long or how much antibodies are needed to not be able to get it for a while. As someone who doesn't get sick but before shutdown was around plenty of sick people there's a reasonable chance I was one it just passed through, but that is already pushing 7-9 months ago by now so who knows if it would even matter now.

[LouisEly]

But I'd sure like an easy/reliable antibody test to know if it has passed through.

Donate blood. The Red Cross and Vitalant do free COVID antibody tests on your blood.

[homer]

We talked about surge on college campuses a few pages ago. UW Madison has seen a sharp reduction after the initial surge. Reason could be luck, could be people taking it more seriously, coudl be stricter enforcement, could be the number of students that left campus, could be a lot of things but the good news is that they are down to less than 1% positivity rate:

 

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/university/campus-covid-19-spike-subsides-whats-behind-uw-madisons-drop-in-cases/article_a497abf9-9586-5314-9e66-2209e1f793d5.html

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

3,132 new cases reported today. Meanwhile, there are current lawsuits to get the current safety mandates thrown out. Seems a little tone-deaf, doesn't it? Sheesh.