|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On April 27 2020 06:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 04:21 Vindicare605 wrote:Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-heat-wave-draws-large-crowds-beaches-despite-stay-home-n1192766An estimated 40,000 packed onto Newport Beach on Friday and similar crowds were expected Saturday according to the Associated Press This is bad but it was expected. We've been on lockdown for over a month and the temperature has shot up in the last week. Orange County doesn't have a citywide stay at home order like LA county does (there's still a statewide order in place) and their per capita cases of COVID are much lower than in LA county but if shit like this continues that's gonna change. Damn it, we were doing so well here in keeping our numbers low. I'm worried this heat is gonna drive people outside until the cases start spiking and by then it's gonna be too late. Orange County does report it's numbers daily on https://occovid19.ochealthinfo.com/coronavirus-in-ocThe beaches are a good test case as opposed to enclosed restaurants and indoor stadiums for transmission. 100,000+ in Orange County beaches should register on them if outdoor open-air transmission is really high.
Well this is from 2 hours ago.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/orange-county-coronavirus-cases-surpass-2000/2352372/?fbclid=IwAR20rtp73bkyqbRZ1_NYYwRky3TYW0Rm5y-Y09RfujV-nglPLSv-mxBL8_g
The article headline and picture seems to SUGGEST a correlation between the beach crowds and the milestone but the content doesn't.
It strictly talks about the reported numbers and the concern about the spread due to the beach crowds.
Unlike in neighboring Los Angeles County, the public was not strictly prohibited from visiting the sand in Orange County.
Orange County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Carrie Braun said county beach parking lots are closed, but not the beaches.
"It's an effort for people to stay in their neighborhoods," Braun said. "We're taking an education approach first and volunteer compliance. No reports of any large-scale issues."
This only bothers me because I know that people from LA were traveling to those beaches too, so if there IS an issue with those crowds it's gonna double back to LA county it won't just stay local to OC.
But so far it's too early to say what these crowds are going to do, we won't know that for 2 weeks. 2 weeks of big beach crowds. It makes me really nervous.
|
On April 27 2020 08:01 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 06:07 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2020 04:21 Vindicare605 wrote:Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-heat-wave-draws-large-crowds-beaches-despite-stay-home-n1192766An estimated 40,000 packed onto Newport Beach on Friday and similar crowds were expected Saturday according to the Associated Press This is bad but it was expected. We've been on lockdown for over a month and the temperature has shot up in the last week. Orange County doesn't have a citywide stay at home order like LA county does (there's still a statewide order in place) and their per capita cases of COVID are much lower than in LA county but if shit like this continues that's gonna change. Damn it, we were doing so well here in keeping our numbers low. I'm worried this heat is gonna drive people outside until the cases start spiking and by then it's gonna be too late. Orange County does report it's numbers daily on https://occovid19.ochealthinfo.com/coronavirus-in-ocThe beaches are a good test case as opposed to enclosed restaurants and indoor stadiums for transmission. 100,000+ in Orange County beaches should register on them if outdoor open-air transmission is really high. Well this is from 2 hours ago. https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/orange-county-coronavirus-cases-surpass-2000/2352372/?fbclid=IwAR20rtp73bkyqbRZ1_NYYwRky3TYW0Rm5y-Y09RfujV-nglPLSv-mxBL8_gThe article headline and picture seems to SUGGEST a correlation between the beach crowds and the milestone but the content doesn't. It strictly talks about the reported numbers and the concern about the spread due to the beach crowds. Show nested quote +Unlike in neighboring Los Angeles County, the public was not strictly prohibited from visiting the sand in Orange County.
Orange County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Carrie Braun said county beach parking lots are closed, but not the beaches.
"It's an effort for people to stay in their neighborhoods," Braun said. "We're taking an education approach first and volunteer compliance. No reports of any large-scale issues." This only bothers me because I know that people from LA were traveling to those beaches too, so if there IS an issue with those crowds it's gonna double back to LA county it won't just stay local to OC. But so far it's too early to say what these crowds are going to do, we won't know that for 2 weeks. 2 weeks of big beach crowds. It makes me really nervous.
The website I linked has the data over the past weeks and months that show the trend. We are looking for an inflation starting in the next few days as symptoms present and people show up to get tested. LA county too. It’s too early to see any of this reflected yet, because beach weather just started two days ago around here. The reporters are just reporting the milestone of 2000 when it’s been creeping up 1845 1969 2074 ... and reporters like big round numbers. Over the next week or so we should see if it’s bad or how bad it is.
|
On April 27 2020 04:48 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 04:33 LegalLord wrote:On April 27 2020 04:21 Vindicare605 wrote:Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-heat-wave-draws-large-crowds-beaches-despite-stay-home-n1192766An estimated 40,000 packed onto Newport Beach on Friday and similar crowds were expected Saturday according to the Associated Press This is bad but it was expected. We've been on lockdown for over a month and the temperature has shot up in the last week. Orange County doesn't have a citywide stay at home order like LA county does (there's still a statewide order in place) and their per capita cases of COVID are much lower than in LA county but if shit like this continues that's gonna change. Damn it, we were doing so well here in keeping our numbers low. I'm worried this heat is gonna drive people outside until the cases start spiking and by then it's gonna be too late. Feels like lockdown has run out of steam in the US. It's just so contrary to the way that Americans are as a culture as to be untenable. As premature as it seems, it's looking very much like early May is going to be when we see only partial lockdowns at best. Yes, it is certain that more death will come from that. So the pattern is gonna be "lockdown is working but I'm bored let's go out!" to "we went out so the case rate spiked, let's stay home" rinse repeat. God people are stupid.
There's no correlation with lockdown and case #'s. Feel free to post the statistical studies showing there is one though. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
For those advocating lockdowns, I wonder, what's your criteria for when we'd be fine lifting it? How sustainable do you think unemployment numbers of over 20-30% are?
|
On April 27 2020 13:25 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 04:48 Vindicare605 wrote:On April 27 2020 04:33 LegalLord wrote:On April 27 2020 04:21 Vindicare605 wrote:Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-heat-wave-draws-large-crowds-beaches-despite-stay-home-n1192766An estimated 40,000 packed onto Newport Beach on Friday and similar crowds were expected Saturday according to the Associated Press This is bad but it was expected. We've been on lockdown for over a month and the temperature has shot up in the last week. Orange County doesn't have a citywide stay at home order like LA county does (there's still a statewide order in place) and their per capita cases of COVID are much lower than in LA county but if shit like this continues that's gonna change. Damn it, we were doing so well here in keeping our numbers low. I'm worried this heat is gonna drive people outside until the cases start spiking and by then it's gonna be too late. Feels like lockdown has run out of steam in the US. It's just so contrary to the way that Americans are as a culture as to be untenable. As premature as it seems, it's looking very much like early May is going to be when we see only partial lockdowns at best. Yes, it is certain that more death will come from that. So the pattern is gonna be "lockdown is working but I'm bored let's go out!" to "we went out so the case rate spiked, let's stay home" rinse repeat. God people are stupid. There's no correlation with lockdown and case #'s. Feel free to post the statistical studies showing there is one though. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. For those advocating lockdowns, I wonder, what's your criteria for when we'd be fine lifting it? How sustainable do you think unemployment numbers of over 20-30% are?
Umm look at the article I linked just below the one you're quoting. The one with the map.
Notice how California one of the first impacted states and the state with the highest population by far in the US that enacted the first lockdown procedures before other states did has only 5 counties with 100 cases per 100,000 people? And most of those only hit that benchmark last week.
You can also look at the countries that ordered lockdowns early like New Zealand, Taiwan, Korea, and even Thailand. The countries and states that enacted the orders early are the ones that are doing the best.
The evidence is plain as day dude. If you want to find me a source that says that this obvious correlation isnt actually correlated, be my guest.
|
On April 27 2020 13:30 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 13:25 Wegandi wrote:On April 27 2020 04:48 Vindicare605 wrote:On April 27 2020 04:33 LegalLord wrote:On April 27 2020 04:21 Vindicare605 wrote:Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-heat-wave-draws-large-crowds-beaches-despite-stay-home-n1192766An estimated 40,000 packed onto Newport Beach on Friday and similar crowds were expected Saturday according to the Associated Press This is bad but it was expected. We've been on lockdown for over a month and the temperature has shot up in the last week. Orange County doesn't have a citywide stay at home order like LA county does (there's still a statewide order in place) and their per capita cases of COVID are much lower than in LA county but if shit like this continues that's gonna change. Damn it, we were doing so well here in keeping our numbers low. I'm worried this heat is gonna drive people outside until the cases start spiking and by then it's gonna be too late. Feels like lockdown has run out of steam in the US. It's just so contrary to the way that Americans are as a culture as to be untenable. As premature as it seems, it's looking very much like early May is going to be when we see only partial lockdowns at best. Yes, it is certain that more death will come from that. So the pattern is gonna be "lockdown is working but I'm bored let's go out!" to "we went out so the case rate spiked, let's stay home" rinse repeat. God people are stupid. There's no correlation with lockdown and case #'s. Feel free to post the statistical studies showing there is one though. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. For those advocating lockdowns, I wonder, what's your criteria for when we'd be fine lifting it? How sustainable do you think unemployment numbers of over 20-30% are? Umm look at the article I linked just below the one you're quoting. The one with the map. Notice how California one of the first impacted states and the state with the highest population by far in the US that enacted the first lockdown procedures before other states did has only 5 counties with 100 cases per 100,000 people? And most of those only hit that benchmark last week. You can also look at the countries that ordered lockdowns early like New Zealand, Taiwan, Korea, and even Thailand. The countries and states that enacted the orders early are the ones that are doing the best. The evidence is plain as day dude. If you want to find me a source that says that this obvious correlation isnt actually correlated, be my guest.
No, the evidence is not plain as day. Of the 8 states that have no current lockdown orders they are below the norm for C-19 cases on any rate basis you wish to use. It's more plausible and likely that high testing rates with quarantines of the affected peoples contributed to lower R values as well as physical-distancing guidelines.
There's really nothing rational about banning people from surfing, hiking in the mountains, etc. while having people lineup to enter retail/grocery outlets.
Again though, I just want to point out you're not really arguing from data, you're just stating an apriori praxis argument with a circular argument - like dude, this is so obvious that it's correlated just believe me like gosh.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2020/04/22/there_is_no_empirical_evidence_for_these_lockdowns_508783.html
Yeah I know you'll probably object to where it was posted, but if you want to argue the numbers I'm all ears.
|
Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
Are you fucking kidding me dude? These are the sparsest populated states (except Utah) in the entire country except for Alaska. The virus isn't even THERE yet.
Just read the article I linked dude. The virus is spreading out from the cities where it first came to the US. It hasn't reached middle rural America yet, but it's going to get there.
Arguing their policies vs policies of the states actually being impacted is fucking ridiculous. We may as well ask the country of Greenland what their policy is.
Just because someone makes up some numbers, that literally doesn't mean anything if the numbers they pull from is ridiculously unrelated.
|
United States43458 Posts
On April 27 2020 13:55 Vindicare605 wrote:
Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
Are you fucking kidding me dude? These are the sparsest populated states in the entire country except for Alaska. The virus isn't even THERE yet.
Just read the article I linked dude. The virus is spreading out from the cities where it first came to the US. It hasn't reached middle rural America yet, but it's going to get there.
Arguing their policies vs policies of the states actually being impacted is fucking ridiculous. We may as well ask the country of Greenland what their policy is.
Greenland is a semi autonomous part of Denmark not a sovereign nation.
|
On April 27 2020 13:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 13:55 Vindicare605 wrote:
Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
Are you fucking kidding me dude? These are the sparsest populated states in the entire country except for Alaska. The virus isn't even THERE yet.
Just read the article I linked dude. The virus is spreading out from the cities where it first came to the US. It hasn't reached middle rural America yet, but it's going to get there.
Arguing their policies vs policies of the states actually being impacted is fucking ridiculous. We may as well ask the country of Greenland what their policy is. Greenland is a semi autonomous part of Denmark not a sovereign nation.
Yes I know that I was just saying it for emphasis.
|
For what it's worth, I don't think sparsely populated areas need to engage in the same social distancing measures that the major cities do. That's kind of pointless since they are already distant from one another just based on population density.
The conversation you jumped into was about Orange County and LA County. Located in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country.
If you really think data from Arkansas and Iowa is relevant to what is happening in Orange County and LA County then I really don't know what to say to you.
|
On April 27 2020 13:50 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 13:30 Vindicare605 wrote:On April 27 2020 13:25 Wegandi wrote:On April 27 2020 04:48 Vindicare605 wrote:On April 27 2020 04:33 LegalLord wrote:On April 27 2020 04:21 Vindicare605 wrote:Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-heat-wave-draws-large-crowds-beaches-despite-stay-home-n1192766An estimated 40,000 packed onto Newport Beach on Friday and similar crowds were expected Saturday according to the Associated Press This is bad but it was expected. We've been on lockdown for over a month and the temperature has shot up in the last week. Orange County doesn't have a citywide stay at home order like LA county does (there's still a statewide order in place) and their per capita cases of COVID are much lower than in LA county but if shit like this continues that's gonna change. Damn it, we were doing so well here in keeping our numbers low. I'm worried this heat is gonna drive people outside until the cases start spiking and by then it's gonna be too late. Feels like lockdown has run out of steam in the US. It's just so contrary to the way that Americans are as a culture as to be untenable. As premature as it seems, it's looking very much like early May is going to be when we see only partial lockdowns at best. Yes, it is certain that more death will come from that. So the pattern is gonna be "lockdown is working but I'm bored let's go out!" to "we went out so the case rate spiked, let's stay home" rinse repeat. God people are stupid. There's no correlation with lockdown and case #'s. Feel free to post the statistical studies showing there is one though. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. For those advocating lockdowns, I wonder, what's your criteria for when we'd be fine lifting it? How sustainable do you think unemployment numbers of over 20-30% are? Umm look at the article I linked just below the one you're quoting. The one with the map. Notice how California one of the first impacted states and the state with the highest population by far in the US that enacted the first lockdown procedures before other states did has only 5 counties with 100 cases per 100,000 people? And most of those only hit that benchmark last week. You can also look at the countries that ordered lockdowns early like New Zealand, Taiwan, Korea, and even Thailand. The countries and states that enacted the orders early are the ones that are doing the best. The evidence is plain as day dude. If you want to find me a source that says that this obvious correlation isnt actually correlated, be my guest. No, the evidence is not plain as day. Of the 8 states that have no current lockdown orders they are below the norm for C-19 cases on any rate basis you wish to use. It's more plausible and likely that high testing rates with quarantines of the affected peoples contributed to lower R values as well as physical-distancing guidelines. There's really nothing rational about banning people from surfing, hiking in the mountains, etc. while having people lineup to enter retail/grocery outlets. Again though, I just want to point out you're not really arguing from data, you're just stating an apriori praxis argument with a circular argument - like dude, this is so obvious that it's correlated just believe me like gosh. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2020/04/22/there_is_no_empirical_evidence_for_these_lockdowns_508783.htmlYeah I know you'll probably object to where it was posted, but if you want to argue the numbers I'm all ears.
Yikes.
Finally, I extended my analysis into the international arena. As has been widely reported, Sweden has opted not to lock down in the wake of Covid-19, and Swedes have instead followed similar social-distancing measures to those adopted in the seven US states I focused on.
Again, there is very little evidence that Sweden has become an unlivable Covid-19 hotbed. As of 17 April, Sweden’s Covid-19 statistics were: 13,216 total cases, 1,400 total deaths, 1,309 cases per million and 139 deaths per million. In terms of cases per million residents, Sweden ranks slightly ahead of its close neighbours, Denmark (1,221) and Norway (1,274).
Deaths per 1M:
Norway: 37
Denmark: 73
Sweden: 217
Even with cherry picking his data this is the best example he could come up with...?
Of course none of the states without shelter-in-place orders have been hard hit. If they were hard hit then they would have shelter-in-place orders. Pretty clear example of survivorship bias.
If you look at the 200 most populous cities in the USA, then the average state should have 4 of those cities (200 ÷ 50). The 7 states the author of that article listed as doing well without shelter-in-place orders have a total of 7 among all of them. As Vindicare said, you can't compare Wyoming to California.
|
As Vindicare said, you can't compare Wyoming to California.
Let me put this into perspective. The population of LA County is 10.04 million people in an area that is 4,751^2 miles (source: google). That's a population density of 21,048.2 people per square mile.
Wyoming's TOTAL population is 578,759 people in an area of 97,818^2 miles for a population density of 5.91 people per square mile.
We can do the same exercise for Cheyenne, Wyoming's largest "city" which has a population of 63,957 in an area that is 32.25^2 miles for a population density of 1,983.16 people per square mile.
You wanted numbers Wegandi? How about those numbers? And that's JUST LA County that doesn't even include Orange County which was the other county we were discussing earlier. The greater LA metropolitan area also runs into Ventura and San Bernadino Counties.
Can you see why comparing the social distancing policies between these two areas are completely and totally unrelated to one another? In what reality does data from Wyoming have ANY bearing on the policy making of California which has at least 3 cities in its borders with populations that are more than at least twice the population of the entire STATE of Wyoming?
EDIT: Just for kicks. I went ahead and added up the populations of every state on that list that your article mentioned except for Utah and do you know what I found? The total population of Arkansas, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska is 10.256 million. That's right, it took 6 entire states to surpass the population of just LA County (Remember that doesn't account for the entire LA metropolitan area). I could go ahead and add Utah too but there's really no point since it has the same population as Orange County (~3.2 million). We're talking about population density, the virus spreads FASTER the more people are in close proximity to one another, that's the entire point of social distancing in the first place.
I just can't believe you actually took that article you referenced seriously.
|
Sweden also only have 9k tests per 1 mil, while Denmark has nearly 3 times that number and Norway has 3 times that number. The Scandinavian countries are always compared, because they are closely linked and as such you could argue Sweden has failed and is somewhat of a hotbed, and somewhat comparable to other surprisingly hotbeds like Netherlands and Belgium, and as such can be seen as a disaster for progressive, dynamic and well-drilled nations such as Scandinavia.
|
On April 27 2020 17:15 Dracolich70 wrote:
Sweden also only have 9k tests per 1 mil, while Denmark has nearly 3 times that number and Norway has 3 times that number. The Scandinavian countries are always compared, because they are closely linked and as such you could argue Sweden has failed and is somewhat of a hotbed, and somewhat comparable to other surprisingly hotbeds like Netherlands and Belgium, and as such can be seen as a disaster for progressive, dynamic and well-drilled nations such as Scandinavia.
It's not a disaster for any region, it's just a failed policy in a specific country. Too bad they're not reconsidering their plan like the UK did.
|
About the situation in Sweden: From the start, as I understand it, the idea behind not locking the country down was to save that "nuclear" option for when it was absolutely necessary and would do the most good (i.e. when the hospitals threatened to be over-burdened). That hasn't happened and the country has stayed open. The ongoing strategy is to protect the high risk groups as much as possible while keeping the society working on a basic level.
The rationale behind this (again, as I understand it) is the assumption that the disease can't be beaten with a lock down anyway and that however long time you extend the lock down you are still going to face the same problems once it is lifted (unless there is a vaccine, but no country can stay in lock down for that long).
The scenario where this strategy is good is if the country would have to stay in partial lock down for a very long time. In that scenario, a strict lock down would be counter productive since it only pushes the problem further in the future while threatening such an economic collapse that it would be forced to open up at a relatively quicker pace and thus creating even more problems and deaths because of the virus.
The scenario where the strategy is obviously bad is if there is some cure that is found quickly which reduces the impact of coming out of the lock down. And, if the relatively light measures are too late and not efficient enough, you run the risk of getting an overwhelmed health care system which is what has happened in places like Italy and New York.
|
Yeah, I don't understand what the worry is with Sweden. From what I've read, they are far from reaching their ICU bed capacity etc. The virus has a certain lethality to it. Deaths are unavoidable. Flattening the curve beyond what is needed to not overburden the healthcare system doesn't seem to have any benefits.
|
On April 27 2020 18:49 maybenexttime wrote:
Yeah, I don't understand what the worry is with Sweden. From what I've read, they are far from reaching their ICU bed capacity etc. The virus has a certain lethality to it. Deaths are unavoidable. Flattening the curve beyond what is needed to not overburden the healthcare system doesn't seem to have any benefits.
If you assumed, that at some point everyone will be infected and the lethality remains constant, yes.
But so far most countries still bank on researchers getting a better understanding of the virus to either improve the treatment (-> lower the lethality) or long term vaccines (to reduce the total number of potentially infected).
And then suddenly that assumption falls flat.
|
Dunno, i think there is also a reasonable possibility of trying to reduce the amount of cases so far that you can then individually track them again. A plan to not have 60-70% of the population infected.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
if you lock down enough such that you can revert to track and trace model and quash community transmission, that's one good endpoint. once community transmission is widespread then that no longer works, though/
|
I think Germany is on a good path towards that situation. Our active infections have been going down for a while now, we have basically halved the number in three weeks.
And since i am utterly horrified of the death toll that will happen if 60-70% of the population get this virus even with proper medical care, which is what herd immunity would mean, it is basically the only reasonable path i can see.
Lock down a bit longer, get numbers down, then track and trace seems like a solid gameplan to me. Maybe get some technology developed which makes things easier, like some not-totally-invasive tracing apps.
Anything that involves herd immunity automatically leads to horrific death tolls, and everything that involves overwhelming the healthcare system is even more horrible.
|
On April 27 2020 17:21 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 17:15 Dracolich70 wrote:
Sweden also only have 9k tests per 1 mil, while Denmark has nearly 3 times that number and Norway has 3 times that number. The Scandinavian countries are always compared, because they are closely linked and as such you could argue Sweden has failed and is somewhat of a hotbed, and somewhat comparable to other surprisingly hotbeds like Netherlands and Belgium, and as such can be seen as a disaster for progressive, dynamic and well-drilled nations such as Scandinavia. It's not a disaster for any region, it's just a failed policy in a specific country. Too bad they're not reconsidering their plan like the UK did. Which in itself is a disaster for an advanced country like Sweden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
