Covid19

[Too Tall]

This has been my biggest worry all along.

Read May 11th New Yorker "The Warnings". Hear why Kahn's "Favorite" virus is SARS than stick around for the punchline.

[ZenNMotion]

I'm glad you posted this, there is some good back of the napkin analysis included with some of his other blog posts. Keeping in mind that he's only able to see part of the picture, and himself claims no epidemiology expertise, just looking at the curve for my home state (CA), I'm anticipating that key elements of my current lifestyle status will remain pretty much constant for at least another four months as a very optimistic estimate before I feel "safe" to participate

It sucks but having some data showing the beginning of a flattening in some states at least helps with managing expectations.

Sorry, somehow I quoted a broken link to a good blog post-- here it is-

Forward Looking Post - What does Summer Look Like?

[thollandpe]

Forward Looking Post - What does Summer Look Like?

I'm looking at that with a jaundiced eye. It's a blog post. The author may be a science professor and may even be smart. Referencing some solid data and peer-reviewed studies even. But it's not peer-reviewed science, and it's not even journalism. Might not even have an editor. I was glad to see a few corrections made to the first post that was so heavily circulated. This one has a whole bunch of charts, some with lines and bars, where the y axes are not even labeled.

The challenge of the internet is flattening, all this information presented is seemingly on the same plane. Bash journalism and the mainstream media all you want, but it still has standards. Anybody can have a blog.

I'm not saying it's wrong, just that in my mind it will get the same emphasis that I'd give any other post here.

[vertical_doug]

The real fun starts in the fall with the regular flu returning and symptoms between the two being indistinguishable leading to the real tango.
If we have no national testing plan at that time, oops.

[ZenNMotion]

I'm looking at that with a jaundiced eye. It's a blog post. The author may be a science professor and may even be smart. Referencing some solid data and peer-reviewed studies even. But it's not peer-reviewed science, and it's not even journalism. Might not even have an editor. I was glad to see a few corrections made to the first post that was so heavily circulated. This one has a whole bunch of charts, some with lines and bars, where the y axes are not even labeled.

The challenge of the internet is flattening, all this information presented is seemingly on the same plane. Bash journalism and the mainstream media all you want, but it still has standards. Anybody can have a blog.

I'm not saying it's wrong, just that in my mind it will get the same emphasis that I'd give any other post here.

OK, fair enough, but I'm not sure I understand your point as I was not "bashing journalism and mainstream media"-- I made no reference to it at all. I don't understand the reference to journalistic standards because we both acknowledge the post is a blog post, although FWIW, the author is making frequent appearances on mainstream media as an "expert"- you can assess those credentials yourself to see if they meet your standards for being taken seriously. We all filter information through our own biases and, as you allude to, there's a lot of signal noise out there, we all make our own judgements as to what we give credence to. Neither the blog author or I make any claim that his quoted post is peer reviewed science, or anything more than another information source (note that I didn't say "data source" because it's presenting others' selective data as a secondary source). His own caveats appear on the blog:

"What you need to know up front: I am not claiming to be an expert in coronaviruses, medicine, or preparedness. I have PhD in Microbiology and Immunology from James Cook University, Australia. I am a Assoc. Prof. of Biology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, where I teach and research infectious diseases and host immune responses of animals. I get all of my information directly from experts in their fields and from the papers those experts are publishing daily. I mostly write these articles for my family, friends, and students, who value my advice."

Sorry if the charts were confusing, I'm a data specialist and I know well the challenge of data visualization, not all graphics work equally well to convey information to all viewers. The disparagement seems misplaced as the axes are labeled or identified in context of the description, but I also understand that just because something is on a graph doesn't mean it's accurate or verified. The charts are only as good as the data which, because of testing inconsistencies is imprecise and under-counted providing only clues to the trends. Anyway, for me, the blog post rose above the signal noise and was useful for me to consider some time frames in my own planning and decision making when the way forward isn't clear. Cheers!

[thollandpe]

OK, fair enough, but I'm not sure I understand your point as I was not "bashing journalism and mainstream media"-- I made no reference to it at all. I don't understand the reference to journalistic standards because we both acknowledge the post is a blog post, although FWIW, the author is making frequent appearances on mainstream media as an "expert"- you can assess those credentials yourself to see if they meet your standards for being taken seriously. We all filter information through our own biases and, as you allude to, there's a lot of signal noise out there, we all make our own judgements as to what we give credence to. Neither the blog author or I make any claim that his quoted post is peer reviewed science, or anything more than another information source (note that I didn't say "data source" because it's presenting others' selective data as a secondary source). His own caveats appear on the blog:

"What you need to know up front: I am not claiming to be an expert in coronaviruses, medicine, or preparedness. I have PhD in Microbiology and Immunology from James Cook University, Australia. I am a Assoc. Prof. of Biology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, where I teach and research infectious diseases and host immune responses of animals. I get all of my information directly from experts in their fields and from the papers those experts are publishing daily. I mostly write these articles for my family, friends, and students, who value my advice."

Sorry if the charts were confusing, I'm a data specialist and I know well the challenge of data visualization, not all graphics work equally well to convey information to all viewers. The disparagement seems misplaced as the axes are labeled or identified in context of the description, but I also understand that just because something is on a graph doesn't mean it's accurate or verified. The charts are only as good as the data which, because of testing inconsistencies is imprecise and under-counted providing only clues to the trends. Anyway, for me, the blog post rose above the signal noise and was useful for me to consider some time frames in my own planning and decision making when the way forward isn't clear. Cheers!

Very sorry, Zen, my criticism was not at all directed at you. Sorry for not making that clear, and for my use of "you" when mentioning bashing journalism and media in a post quoting you. I did not intend to say you were. Thanks for posting that link, I've seen it a lot. They have a very large audience right now.

My criticism of the blog stands, even if I find the conclusions helpful. The first charts shown in that post show daily cases vs. date for six US states, but there are two sets of data, a curve (which leads) and then bars (which lag). No mention of what's what, no mention of the source. I think the professor would rightfully ding an undergrad for that presentation.

And the use of "peak" is something I find misleading when talking about a rate. Just because you're not accelerating, or even starting to decelerate, does not mean you're not going too fast. We've all overcooked a corner. Oops, there I go again with "you" and "we."

A previous post on that blog, which I think has since been revised, mentioned a low contraction rate in China for being outdoors, something like 0.3% or 0.03%. That post was cited by friends in defense of their decision to ride outside with others (people they are not quarantined with). While I agree with the conclusion that the risk of catching the coronavirus outside is minimal, I still think it's foolhardy to ride with others under the pretense of maintaining a social distance.

US Cycling prohibits drafting in a time trial, within 80 feet of the rider ahead, or within 7 feet of a rider abreast. That's what they consider a draft.

I know that a fume hood can allow a researcher, who is wearing PPE, safely handle the coronavirus because of the draft across the face of that hood. That air velocity is 100 feet per minute, which is only 1.1 mph. So I'm not riding behind anybody, or letting anybody ride behind me, even in the woods. Besides my dog. For now.

[ZenNMotion]

Very sorry, Zen, my criticism was not at all directed at you. Sorry for not making that clear, and for my use of "you" when mentioning bashing journalism and media in a post quoting you. I did not intend to say you were. Thanks for posting that link, I've seen it a lot. They have a very large audience right now.

My criticism of the blog stands, even if I find the conclusions helpful. The first charts shown in that post show daily cases vs. date for six US states, but there are two sets of data, a curve (which leads) and then bars (which lag). No mention of what's what, no mention of the source. I think the professor would rightfully ding an undergrad for that presentation.

And the use of "peak" is something I find misleading when talking about a rate. Just because you're not accelerating, or even starting to decelerate, does not mean you're not going too fast. We've all overcooked a corner. Oops, there I go again with "you" and "we."

A previous post on that blog, which I think has since been revised, mentioned a low contraction rate in China for being outdoors, something like 0.3% or 0.03%. That post was cited by friends in defense of their decision to ride outside with others (people they are not quarantined with). While I agree with the conclusion that the risk of catching the coronavirus outside is minimal, I still think it's foolhardy to ride with others under the pretense of maintaining a social distance.

US Cycling prohibits drafting in a time trial, within 80 feet of the rider ahead, or within 7 feet of a rider abreast. That's what they consider a draft.

I know that a fume hood can allow a researcher, who is wearing PPE, safely handle the coronavirus because of the draft across the face of that hood. That air velocity is 100 feet per minute, which is only 1.1 mph. So I'm not riding behind anybody, or letting anybody ride behind me, even in the woods. Besides my dog. For now.

Good points, all. I do want to point out however that I have never overcooked a corner, most of my riding is in an active fault zone and the road shifts accordingly. Hard to keep track from day to day. Second, the only draft I consider legit comes in a frosty mug, otherwise, like you said, just don't do it unless it's a post-ride sit-down with your dog. I do have experience with a fume hood, although not all of it's good- I worked for a few years in a research lab and caught one on fire once. Something something about not "burping" a separatory funnel. Boss had no sense of humor about it atall...

[j44ke]

Just heard this for the umpteenth time.

Two people discussing Cuomo: "Do you know anyone who has died? No. Me neither - so how can you close things when no one knows anyone who has died?"

I wanted to explain that mathematically, if everyone knew someone who had died from covid19.....

[monadnocky]

Just heard this for the umpteenth time.

Two people discussing Cuomo: "Do you know anyone who has died? No. Me neither - so how can you close things when no one knows anyone who has died?"

I wanted to explain that mathematically, if everyone knew someone who had died from covid19.....

That's some ironclad logic right there. Minds like steel traps.

[beeatnik]

The deniers are fixated on the numbers. They're fixated on terminology. But what do the numbers really mean. Percentages, exponential, parabolic, multivariate. The numbers matter in terms of perception. And when major papers like the LA Times can't accurately report on study designs and results, the deniers and conspiracy-minded gain ammunition and sense of mission. See below:

Many Latinos test positive for coronavirus in San Francisco - Los Angeles Times

SAN FRANCISCO — During a four-day period, a team of community workers and volunteers with San Francisco’s Latino Task Force and infectious disease specialists at UC San Francisco tested 4,160 residents and workers for the novel coronavirus in a census tract of the city’s Mission District.
They found that 2.1% of those tested were positive; yet it was the details of the group’s demographics that were more revealing.

While Latinos made up 44% of those tested, they accounted for more than 99% of the positive COVID-19 cases. In addition, 40% of those tested earned less than $50,000 per year. That group accounted for nearly 90% of the positive cases.


In fact, the project did not test 4160 residents and workers of a census tract in the Mission. They tested 2969 residents and workers of Mission Census Tract 022901 along with 1201 other individuals (expanded community residents, volunteers, teachers and others). The census tract (Mission 022901) cohort consisted of 2533 census tract residents and 426 census tract workers. Overall, 1.4% of the residents of Mission Census Tract 022901 tested positive. The study also reported: "Three quarters were men and an overwhelming number (95 percent) were Hispanic or Latinx. The majority of those who tested positive (82 percent) reported having been financially affected by economic fallout of the pandemic and only 10 percent reported being able to work from home." So, 95% of 34 (number of residents who tested positive in the census tract) were Latinx; that's 34 individuals. Reading the LA Times article one would conclude that 86 Latinx individuals tasted positive (4160 participants x 2.1% positive rate x 99% Latinx). The difference between 86 and 34 is real, in terms of policy and perception.

If you have a moment read the complete article and compare it to the preliminary report:

Preliminary Findings — Unidos en Salud

Interestingly enough, of the 957 white residents of Mission Census Tract 022901, none tested positive. In the Mission, the second densest neighborhood in the second densest city in the US. In SF, if you're one of those 957, you likely don't know anyone who looks like you who is dying.

Just heard this for the umpteenth time.

Two people discussing Cuomo: "Do you know anyone who has died? No. Me neither - so how can you close things when no one knows anyone who has died?"

I wanted to explain that mathematically, if everyone knew someone who had died from covid19.....

[beeatnik]

Interestingly enough the actual percentage of infected participants in the Mission Study was 1.8% (74 of 4160) and not 2.1%. This Indiana study below found a similar rate, 1.7%:

Coronavirus in Indiana may be 11 times more prevalent than thought

[aingeru]

Facts about Covid-19 – Swiss Policy Research

[Mark Kelly]

So, 95% of 34 (number of residents who tested positive in the census tract) were Latinx; that's 34 individuals.

I think you meant to write: "So 95% of 36 (number of residents who tested positive in the census tract) were Latinx; that's 34 individuals"

[claritycycler]

Facts about Covid-19 – Swiss Policy Research

Apparently this report fully agrees with our federal government's position on the epidemic. "All is well, nothing to worry about" point of view. Sorry but I'm not buying it, so many sources in it are expected to be taken at face value.

[beeatnik]

I think you meant to write: "So 95% of 36 (number of residents who tested positive in the census tract) were Latinx; that's 34 individuals"

Touché.

[Drew]

Interestingly enough the actual percentage of infected participants in the Mission Study was 1.8% (74 of 4160) and not 2.1%. This Indiana study below found a similar rate, 1.7%:

Coronavirus in Indiana may be 11 times more prevalent than thought

My opinion only: the number of people who have been exposed/infected is likely to be much, much higher than what is being reported. Just one example: a friend's son is in college. Nearly an entire dorm floor gets sick, all with flu like symptoms. None test positive for flu, but they all get over it, they are young and healthy for the most part. Six weeks later they're all sent home... kind of a perfect distribution system, eh? Scale that up to every college across the nation. Lots of them have students that had just returned from China. (not saying anything at all derogatory about China - but hey, we all seem to agree that the source was in China). That's just one source. Everybody I know in NYC (maybe a dozen) GTFO of there. So much for stay put, stay home, ride it out. Add business travel... I flew CLT -> PHX -> LAX and back in the first week of March. Probably a total of twelve hours in airports, between a cancelled flight and other delays. Got the poops for a couple days a week later, and distinctly remember not being able to smell anything. I wrote the smell off as allergies (massive pollen drop in NC that day). Poops... bad prawn? Was it Covid?

So currently, Worldometer quotes roughly 1.5mm positive in the USA. What if that's 15mm? Or 30mm? Or 50mm?

CDC states 8% of US population is sickened with flu each year. CDC also states that in 2017, 55,672 people died from flu/pneumonia. Assuming the US is 330mm people, that's 26.4mm sick and 55,672 dead, or 0.21% death rate. Current Worldometer for the US quotes 88,987 deaths, which is 0.2% of 42.2mm. Could 42.2mm people have been infected with Covid? Seems high to me but reality is likely somewhere between that and the numbers that folks are reporting. Going through this also tells me that any comparison to flu numbers is a joke, because nobody knows the real numbers of people who have the flu every year. Thus, it makes sense to me, to make decisions based on # of positive cases vs. # of tests administered. If we test more, we will find more. Again, my opinion only... it's a serious problem for sure, especially in high population density areas, and for those with other risk factors. But what if (again, not saying I believe this), what if it's basically Flu v2.0... more contagious, but effectively the same risks? I bet the people I know at work who are on my FFF list (Freddy Fecal Fingers) will continue to not wash their hands after going #2 .

Cardiac issues kill significantly more people every year (650k in 2017), but we sure as shit aren't shutting down Bojangles or Cookout or In n Out, and grocery stores still sell an awful lot of sugar and salt laden foods.

And some "new business practices" are laughable. I bought coffee this morning, place now only takes plastic or conctactless, because of le virus. That's cool, I get it. But they've still got the cash tip jar out... can't have it both ways.

I'm really concerned that a regional hospital here is going to shut down. They have no business. Patients are scared to get any treatment because of le virus. Goes all the way up to major hospitals. Friend's kid had an emergency surgery (routine, but it had to be done Right Now) at Baptist in Winston Salem. A big, big hospital. Waiting room has a stock ticker to report OR status, and probably 250 seats. There were four (yes, 4) people in it. I like in a neighborhood with maybe 15 or so medical professionals (MD's and PA's)... all are working at most 3/4 time right now, some not working at all, because they have no patients. So the concept that the virus is going to slam every hospital in the country is not true. In NYC, absolutely. But do we throw the main breaker on the whole country because of this?

My mind is a mess right now. I firmly believe that to find the truth, follow the dollars. Is the media overhyping this? Absolutely. They get paid by the click... people click when they feel they need to know something. Are hospitals claiming Covid deaths ($13k Medicare payout) when they should be claiming pneumonia ($5k)? Maybe. Especially if they're at risk of financial issues because of lack of other business. Do we look at infections or infections per test? My state has chosen infections per test, as long as the test rate is rising or flat... time will tell and I don't envy those that have to make the decisions, because no matter what they do, there are going to be a lot of upset people.

I need a beer.

[Saab2000]

My opinion only: the number of people who have been exposed/infected is likely to be much, much higher than what is being reported. Just one example: a friend's son is in college. Nearly an entire dorm floor gets sick, all with flu like symptoms. None test positive for flu, but they all get over it, they are young and healthy for the most part. Six weeks later they're all sent home... kind of a perfect distribution system, eh? Scale that up to every college across the nation. Lots of them have students that had just returned from China. (not saying anything at all derogatory about China - but hey, we all seem to agree that the source was in China). That's just one source. Everybody I know in NYC (maybe a dozen) GTFO of there. So much for stay put, stay home, ride it out. Add business travel... I flew CLT -> PHX -> LAX and back in the first week of March. Probably a total of twelve hours in airports, between a cancelled flight and other delays. Got the poops for a couple days a week later, and distinctly remember not being able to smell anything. I wrote the smell off as allergies (massive pollen drop in NC that day). Poops... bad prawn? Was it Covid?

So currently, Worldometer quotes roughly 1.5mm positive in the USA. What if that's 15mm? Or 30mm? Or 50mm?

CDC states 8% of US population is sickened with flu each year. CDC also states that in 2017, 55,672 people died from flu/pneumonia. Assuming the US is 330mm people, that's 26.4mm sick and 55,672 dead, or 0.21% death rate. Current Worldometer for the US quotes 88,987 deaths, which is 0.2% of 42.2mm. Could 42.2mm people have been infected with Covid? Seems high to me but reality is likely somewhere between that and the numbers that folks are reporting. Going through this also tells me that any comparison to flu numbers is a joke, because nobody knows the real numbers of people who have the flu every year. Thus, it makes sense to me, to make decisions based on # of positive cases vs. # of tests administered. If we test more, we will find more. Again, my opinion only... it's a serious problem for sure, especially in high population density areas, and for those with other risk factors. But what if (again, not saying I believe this), what if it's basically Flu v2.0... more contagious, but effectively the same risks? I bet the people I know at work who are on my FFF list (Freddy Fecal Fingers) will continue to not wash their hands after going #2 .

Cardiac issues kill significantly more people every year (650k in 2017), but we sure as shit aren't shutting down Bojangles or Cookout or In n Out, and grocery stores still sell an awful lot of sugar and salt laden foods.

And some "new business practices" are laughable. I bought coffee this morning, place now only takes plastic or conctactless, because of le virus. That's cool, I get it. But they've still got the cash tip jar out... can't have it both ways.

I'm really concerned that a regional hospital here is going to shut down. They have no business. Patients are scared to get any treatment because of le virus. Goes all the way up to major hospitals. Friend's kid had an emergency surgery (routine, but it had to be done Right Now) at Baptist in Winston Salem. A big, big hospital. Waiting room has a stock ticker to report OR status, and probably 250 seats. There were four (yes, 4) people in it. I like in a neighborhood with maybe 15 or so medical professionals (MD's and PA's)... all are working at most 3/4 time right now, some not working at all, because they have no patients. So the concept that the virus is going to slam every hospital in the country is not true. In NYC, absolutely. But do we throw the main breaker on the whole country because of this?

My mind is a mess right now. I firmly believe that to find the truth, follow the dollars. Is the media overhyping this? Absolutely. They get paid by the click... people click when they feel they need to know something. Are hospitals claiming Covid deaths ($13k Medicare payout) when they should be claiming pneumonia ($5k)? Maybe. Especially if they're at risk of financial issues because of lack of other business. Do we look at infections or infections per test? My state has chosen infections per test, as long as the test rate is rising or flat... time will tell and I don't envy those that have to make the decisions, because no matter what they do, there are going to be a lot of upset people.

I need a beer.

This is where my brain has been going as well. Seems we have more questions than answers.

Lots of hyperbole everywhere (“plague carrier” anyone?) and idiots creating unnecessary excitement (gun-toting Neo-Nazis anyone?) and my life is very boring. At least my career (as well as millions of others) is at risk.

My mother, whose work was in health care and knows a thing or two about this, and I had long conversations about this subject last week. Instead of putting her on an airplane I drove to Minneapolis to pick her up and bring her to Chicago for a week. At 83 she’s fully aware of her mortality and that this trip was not risk-free. But mental health is worth protecting as well and the lockup isn’t something she loved. And she has had mental health challenges in the past.

Obviously we want to minimize risk and needless suffering. But we need to be careful about not losing sight of the forest by focusing on a single tree.

I drove her home again last week. She’s in a pretty disciplined quarantine in her retirement condo for 14 days. Today is day 7 and she’s feeling fine.

[beeatnik]

Drew, the community-led screening project in the Mission tested more than half of the residents of a census tract. At this point, it's as close to universal testing as has been reported. Next week they'll release the results of the antibody tests. Based on early figures, the rates are lower than projected. As for the total number of exposures, that should also be in line with other serological studies. So moral of the story, "more than confirmed, less than we fear."

[Drew]

Amen. Hopefully we will learn from this. Saab... I feel your pain on the career, mine is at risk also, I took two months off already. Just now easing back in. Lots of time to think. Takes me back to college philosophy days... do you subscribe to Kant? or Mill?

And that's dangerous in a fickle society with hyperactive media that gets paid per click. I believe it was Chris Cornell... "the grass is always greener, where the dogs are shitting."

[j44ke]

The null value is the most difficult sell.