|
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. |
Norway28675 Posts
On July 26 2020 15:28 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2020 04:54 JimmiC wrote:
You would at this point people would figure out how serious this given that now it is happening happening in a bunch of states at the same time. But given how it had happened in, Italy, Spain and New York before this. It appears that the US needs it to become a huge problem with many deaths very locally to have it make and impact.
Bonus of things I think now everyone who participates in these threads is on board with it being a real issue and that measures are needed. What people seem to be unable to acknowledge is that the initial lockdowns failed. This is probably because of the sunk cost fallacy, which most normal humans generally apply. Because lockdowns failed, generally,* the eventual state of all places will be a result of the underlying customs, and people of that place, or you will wait for vaccine +6 months. Places with better environmental advantages (initially the US South, but now places that are more temperate like Europe because the South uses so much air conditioning in the summer) will look good, but eventually everyone hits their wave. This will obviously hit different places differently. NYC.did very badly initially, and now it looks ok. This is either because it has already burnt through the vulnerable (which is different and much lower than the 70% herd immunity number) or because it's super locked down still and will simply re-explode after. Florida looked good before (probably because of lack of indoorness) and now looks bad (Air conditioning primary suspect). I feel like comparing inter-country based on the rawest stats is like comparing German World Cup coaches with Australian coaches, and thinking the German coaches are obviously better. Maybe, but they also had huge advantages. From a pandemic POV, the US is the most disadvantaged 1st world country, probably by an order of magnitude because of demographics and borders. * In the West
Did the lockdowns in the west, or in the US? The European countries that struggled the most did so because they didn't lockdown or lockdowned too late - once lockdowns were in place mostly all european countries saw positive results. Out of the western European countries hit hard, there's basically a) Italy, who gets excused because they were first, b) Spain and France, who took actions at least two weeks later than they should have (but where it was reasonably well managed after that), c) UK, who struggles with much of the same political ineptitude you do in the US, d) Sweden, who took their own path, e) Belgium/Netherlands, countries with population densities comparable to NY/NJ (and where belgium counted deaths in a more liberal way than other countries did).
Countries taking too long to lockdown isn't really lockdowns failing imo, it's countries failing to lockdown.
Also I agree that the US is the most disadvantaged 1st world country from a pandemic POV and I did expect the densely populated american areas to be the hardest hit western areas, but for entirely different reasons from what you cite, those being a) incredibly fragmented society and media, some very influential actors pushing the idea that it's not a big deal b) worse social net/worker rights/daycare options meaning many people have less of an option to stay home/WFH c) lack of trust in government among the population. While I get what you mean about borders (between states I assume), what do you mean with citing demographics? Younger average population meaning more people don't care? (It's also an advantage in making it less deadly!  )
|
On July 26 2020 17:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2020 15:28 cLutZ wrote:On July 26 2020 04:54 JimmiC wrote:
You would at this point people would figure out how serious this given that now it is happening happening in a bunch of states at the same time. But given how it had happened in, Italy, Spain and New York before this. It appears that the US needs it to become a huge problem with many deaths very locally to have it make and impact.
Bonus of things I think now everyone who participates in these threads is on board with it being a real issue and that measures are needed. What people seem to be unable to acknowledge is that the initial lockdowns failed. This is probably because of the sunk cost fallacy, which most normal humans generally apply. Because lockdowns failed, generally,* the eventual state of all places will be a result of the underlying customs, and people of that place, or you will wait for vaccine +6 months. Places with better environmental advantages (initially the US South, but now places that are more temperate like Europe because the South uses so much air conditioning in the summer) will look good, but eventually everyone hits their wave. This will obviously hit different places differently. NYC.did very badly initially, and now it looks ok. This is either because it has already burnt through the vulnerable (which is different and much lower than the 70% herd immunity number) or because it's super locked down still and will simply re-explode after. Florida looked good before (probably because of lack of indoorness) and now looks bad (Air conditioning primary suspect). I feel like comparing inter-country based on the rawest stats is like comparing German World Cup coaches with Australian coaches, and thinking the German coaches are obviously better. Maybe, but they also had huge advantages. From a pandemic POV, the US is the most disadvantaged 1st world country, probably by an order of magnitude because of demographics and borders. * In the West Did the lockdowns in the west, or in the US? The European countries that struggled the most did so because they didn't lockdown or lockdowned too late - once lockdowns were in place mostly all european countries saw positive results. Out of the western European countries hit hard, there's basically a) Italy, who gets excused because they were first, b) Spain and France, who took actions at least two weeks later than they should have (but where it was reasonably well managed after that), c) UK, who struggles with much of the same political ineptitude you do in the US, d) Sweden, who took their own path, e) Belgium/Netherlands, countries with population densities comparable to NY/NJ (and where belgium counted deaths in a more liberal way than other countries did). Countries taking too long to lockdown isn't really lockdowns failing imo, it's countries failing to lockdown. Also I agree that the US is the most disadvantaged 1st world country from a pandemic POV and I did expect the densely populated american areas to be the hardest hit western areas, but for entirely different reasons from what you cite, those being a) incredibly fragmented society and media, some very influential actors pushing the idea that it's not a big deal b) worse social net/worker rights/daycare options meaning many people have less of an option to stay home/WFH c) lack of trust in government among the population. While I get what you mean about borders (between states I assume), what do you mean with citing demographics? Younger average population meaning more people don't care? (It's also an advantage in making it less deadly! )
Well, Spain is right now wondering what the hell to do with a resurgence of cases. The government desperately doesn't want to crash the slight recovery of the economy by forcing lockdowns again, but wearing masks, social distancing and hoping it all stays under control didn't work and one by one, stricter rules are being put in place again, with the medical institutions worrying that max capacity is going to be reached again in some locations (Barcelona soon, but Madrid isn't far behind). Sooner countries have removed Spain from the safe list, and the UK just announced that returning holiday-makers will need to quarantine for 2 weeks. This will totally wreck whatever was being salvaged of the tourism industry (hugely important sector here).
So it does beg the question: the lockdown worked to bring the initial sure under control, but if any measures beside lockdown fail to maintain it afterwards, did the lockdown actually work?
|
Norway28675 Posts
I'd say yeah, then the lockdown worked. Looking at any of the graphs for spain at worldometers tells me that the lockdowns were greatly successful.
Compare to how it looks in the US
Spain had a month and a half from may- mid july where the daily case load was like 5% of the late march/early april peak. in the US, there's never more than a slight reduction. Now, if you look at a state by state basis (say, new york, you can find examples that look more like what you found in european countries, but then I would also say that after the initial bungling, New York has done a pretty good job. (Which, again, is comparable to western european countries - many had too slow of a response initially, but once the response happened, it was successful.)
That it's not economically/socially sustainable to keep an indefinite lockdown is another matter - but I'd say the data clearly shows that lockdowns have worked.
|
On July 26 2020 17:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2020 17:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 26 2020 15:28 cLutZ wrote:On July 26 2020 04:54 JimmiC wrote:
You would at this point people would figure out how serious this given that now it is happening happening in a bunch of states at the same time. But given how it had happened in, Italy, Spain and New York before this. It appears that the US needs it to become a huge problem with many deaths very locally to have it make and impact.
Bonus of things I think now everyone who participates in these threads is on board with it being a real issue and that measures are needed. What people seem to be unable to acknowledge is that the initial lockdowns failed. This is probably because of the sunk cost fallacy, which most normal humans generally apply. Because lockdowns failed, generally,* the eventual state of all places will be a result of the underlying customs, and people of that place, or you will wait for vaccine +6 months. Places with better environmental advantages (initially the US South, but now places that are more temperate like Europe because the South uses so much air conditioning in the summer) will look good, but eventually everyone hits their wave. This will obviously hit different places differently. NYC.did very badly initially, and now it looks ok. This is either because it has already burnt through the vulnerable (which is different and much lower than the 70% herd immunity number) or because it's super locked down still and will simply re-explode after. Florida looked good before (probably because of lack of indoorness) and now looks bad (Air conditioning primary suspect). I feel like comparing inter-country based on the rawest stats is like comparing German World Cup coaches with Australian coaches, and thinking the German coaches are obviously better. Maybe, but they also had huge advantages. From a pandemic POV, the US is the most disadvantaged 1st world country, probably by an order of magnitude because of demographics and borders. * In the West Did the lockdowns in the west, or in the US? The European countries that struggled the most did so because they didn't lockdown or lockdowned too late - once lockdowns were in place mostly all european countries saw positive results. Out of the western European countries hit hard, there's basically a) Italy, who gets excused because they were first, b) Spain and France, who took actions at least two weeks later than they should have (but where it was reasonably well managed after that), c) UK, who struggles with much of the same political ineptitude you do in the US, d) Sweden, who took their own path, e) Belgium/Netherlands, countries with population densities comparable to NY/NJ (and where belgium counted deaths in a more liberal way than other countries did). Countries taking too long to lockdown isn't really lockdowns failing imo, it's countries failing to lockdown. Also I agree that the US is the most disadvantaged 1st world country from a pandemic POV and I did expect the densely populated american areas to be the hardest hit western areas, but for entirely different reasons from what you cite, those being a) incredibly fragmented society and media, some very influential actors pushing the idea that it's not a big deal b) worse social net/worker rights/daycare options meaning many people have less of an option to stay home/WFH c) lack of trust in government among the population. While I get what you mean about borders (between states I assume), what do you mean with citing demographics? Younger average population meaning more people don't care? (It's also an advantage in making it less deadly! ) Well, Spain is right now wondering what the hell to do with a resurgence of cases. The government desperately doesn't want to crash the slight recovery of the economy by forcing lockdowns again, but wearing masks, social distancing and hoping it all stays under control didn't work and one by one, stricter rules are being put in place again, with the medical institutions worrying that max capacity is going to be reached again in some locations (Barcelona soon, but Madrid isn't far behind). Sooner countries have removed Spain from the safe list, and the UK just announced that returning holiday-makers will need to quarantine for 2 weeks. This will totally wreck whatever was being salvaged of the tourism industry (hugely important sector here). So it does beg the question: the lockdown worked to bring the initial sure under control, but if any measures beside lockdown fail to maintain it afterwards, did the lockdown actually work?
I read somewhere that Spain had a bit the same problem than the US in that it lacks a coordinated, central answer to the pandemic, and leaves to its autonomous communities decide separately what measures are necessary.
Don't know if the analysis is correct, and I can see advantages to having regional responses, but I also can very well imagine that it multiplies the chances of making crucial mistakes and can potentially turns what should be a sigle policy into a disjointed patchwork of approaches.
|
On July 26 2020 18:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2020 17:31 Acrofales wrote:On July 26 2020 17:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 26 2020 15:28 cLutZ wrote:On July 26 2020 04:54 JimmiC wrote:
You would at this point people would figure out how serious this given that now it is happening happening in a bunch of states at the same time. But given how it had happened in, Italy, Spain and New York before this. It appears that the US needs it to become a huge problem with many deaths very locally to have it make and impact.
Bonus of things I think now everyone who participates in these threads is on board with it being a real issue and that measures are needed. What people seem to be unable to acknowledge is that the initial lockdowns failed. This is probably because of the sunk cost fallacy, which most normal humans generally apply. Because lockdowns failed, generally,* the eventual state of all places will be a result of the underlying customs, and people of that place, or you will wait for vaccine +6 months. Places with better environmental advantages (initially the US South, but now places that are more temperate like Europe because the South uses so much air conditioning in the summer) will look good, but eventually everyone hits their wave. This will obviously hit different places differently. NYC.did very badly initially, and now it looks ok. This is either because it has already burnt through the vulnerable (which is different and much lower than the 70% herd immunity number) or because it's super locked down still and will simply re-explode after. Florida looked good before (probably because of lack of indoorness) and now looks bad (Air conditioning primary suspect). I feel like comparing inter-country based on the rawest stats is like comparing German World Cup coaches with Australian coaches, and thinking the German coaches are obviously better. Maybe, but they also had huge advantages. From a pandemic POV, the US is the most disadvantaged 1st world country, probably by an order of magnitude because of demographics and borders. * In the West Did the lockdowns in the west, or in the US? The European countries that struggled the most did so because they didn't lockdown or lockdowned too late - once lockdowns were in place mostly all european countries saw positive results. Out of the western European countries hit hard, there's basically a) Italy, who gets excused because they were first, b) Spain and France, who took actions at least two weeks later than they should have (but where it was reasonably well managed after that), c) UK, who struggles with much of the same political ineptitude you do in the US, d) Sweden, who took their own path, e) Belgium/Netherlands, countries with population densities comparable to NY/NJ (and where belgium counted deaths in a more liberal way than other countries did). Countries taking too long to lockdown isn't really lockdowns failing imo, it's countries failing to lockdown. Also I agree that the US is the most disadvantaged 1st world country from a pandemic POV and I did expect the densely populated american areas to be the hardest hit western areas, but for entirely different reasons from what you cite, those being a) incredibly fragmented society and media, some very influential actors pushing the idea that it's not a big deal b) worse social net/worker rights/daycare options meaning many people have less of an option to stay home/WFH c) lack of trust in government among the population. While I get what you mean about borders (between states I assume), what do you mean with citing demographics? Younger average population meaning more people don't care? (It's also an advantage in making it less deadly! ) Well, Spain is right now wondering what the hell to do with a resurgence of cases. The government desperately doesn't want to crash the slight recovery of the economy by forcing lockdowns again, but wearing masks, social distancing and hoping it all stays under control didn't work and one by one, stricter rules are being put in place again, with the medical institutions worrying that max capacity is going to be reached again in some locations (Barcelona soon, but Madrid isn't far behind). Sooner countries have removed Spain from the safe list, and the UK just announced that returning holiday-makers will need to quarantine for 2 weeks. This will totally wreck whatever was being salvaged of the tourism industry (hugely important sector here). So it does beg the question: the lockdown worked to bring the initial sure under control, but if any measures beside lockdown fail to maintain it afterwards, did the lockdown actually work? I read somewhere that Spain had a bit the same problem than the US in that it lacks a coordinated, central answer to the pandemic, and leaves to its autonomous communities decide separately what measures are necessary. Don't know if the analysis is correct, and I can see advantages to having regional responses, but I also can very well imagine that it multiplies the chances of making crucial mistakes and can potentially turns what should be a sigle policy into a disjointed patchwork of approaches.
I don't really think that is fair, as I don't think maintaining the state of emergency for longer was warranted.
A better explanation is that current legal frameworks are badly equipped to deal with a crisis like this. I don't know about France, but most countries protect freedom of movement quite strongly, and require specific legal constructs to restrict it.
In Spain, a general restriction of movement can only be declared in a state of emergency, which cannot be declared locally. So when the federal government returned control to local authorities, they gave these all the support they could. However, without declaring the state of emergency again, it was unconstitutional to lock down certain areas. Which means the best local governments could do was "strongly urge" people to please stay at home. Turns out, people didn't listen. Laws are being drafted to better deal with the situation, but if you have followed Spanish politics at all over the past 5 years, you'll know that the balance between federal and local control is all kinds of fucked up, and ad hoc solutions will probably just get struck down by the constitutional court. This legal quagmire is just causing a lot of confusion and people end up doing what they think is best, and this leads to municipal rules being at odds with state government, which in turn are at odds with federal regulations.
But in major contrast to what we hear from the US, everybody is trying to control the situation as best they can, and nobody is suing one another over rules to mandate the use of masks, nor wants to let the virus run rampant for the sake of the economy.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Of further benefit to Europe is that it's not really a single entity - reality is that it's a cluster of quite a few countries that notionally have freedom of movement amongst each other, but who will not hesitate to close their borders at the first sign of trouble. If, for example, there was a large spike of infection in Poland, other European countries would be far better equipped to isolate themselves by just locking down all borders and travel with Poland. Contrast to the US, where a bad actor like Florida either can't or won't be isolated in the same way. Guess where a second wave will come from?
Pretty much every large, well-populated country that didn't immediately nip the problem in the bud has the situation where originally it was one region that had the outbreak, but later on a different one does. A lot of people will by their own initiative stop traveling around if it's dangerous, but it's exactly those who aren't careful who make up a disproportionate fraction of the highly mobile plaguespreaders.
|
Regarding Spain the official death count is maybe way to low. According to a Swedish newspaper there could be up to 60% more deaths that could be convid connected.
This is because that they only count death of people tested positive, and many deaths of elderly hasn't been tested. But there is an abnormal death rate among them so why the number they came up with. Read similar about Belgium months ago, so just shows it can be hard to compare country statistically, can't even guess the true numbers from Africa.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 27 2020 01:04 Sapaio wrote:Regarding Spain the official death count is maybe way to low. According to a Swedish newspaper there could be up to 60% more deaths that could be convid connected. This is because that they only count death of people tested positive, and many deaths of elderly hasn't been tested. But there is an abnormal death rate among them so why the number they came up with. Read similar about Belgium months ago, so just shows it can be hard to compare country statistically, can't even guess the true numbers from Africa.
There are a lot of countries where, when people die, no one is keeping track. Large swaths of Africa, South America, and even Asia have this problem. India, for example, probably has far more people dead than the official numbers show - if someone dies in a remote village from a respiratory failure and there is no one around to help or even to know that it happened, that will have trouble making its way to excess death, let alone confirmed coronavirus death, statistics.
At least in Spain, if someone dies from a respiratory failure, it'll definitely be reported and it will most likely be properly identified as pneumonia. These other countries, we don't know what's happening but it's likely not good.
|
Are things worse than in March or April? Because from reading news it sounds like the virus is escalating. Cannot be locked down until Christmas either...
|
In a way it’s worse.
I’ve been following the Australian coronavirus outbreak because it’s a good example of a country that was in an envious position that it’s quickly turning sour.
The initial outbreak in the state of Victoria was reportedly caused by a quarantine breech that spread amongst family and perhaps religious gatherings. That actually should be expected and shouldn’t be the biggest problem because you can simply contact trace and warn the public to stay home for the meantime.
The biggest problem is the response from the Victorian people. In news of looming restrictions, many fled across the border to other states potentially spreading the virus in neighbouring New South Wales. Then during the lockdowns and time of mass testing, 9 in 10 people would get tested and then carry on with their daily lives before they got their test results back (government claims 2 day turnaround). Some of these people are selfish but commentary I’ve read brings up a good point that a lot of casual workers don’t have any choice except to go back to work unless they want their hours replaced
In the case of Victoria, it’s a selfish population issue combined with the government not taking into account the precarious employment situation for a lot of non-contract workers. The biggest problem is not the lockdowns not working, it’s government and people attempting to bring everything back to 2019 when it’s clear that the world has changed.
|
On July 26 2020 16:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2020 15:28 cLutZ wrote:
NYC.did very badly initially, and now it looks ok. This is either because it has already burnt through the vulnerable (which is different and much lower than the 70% herd immunity number) or because it's super locked down still and will simply re-explode after. Florida looked good before (probably because of lack of indoorness) and now looks bad (Air conditioning primary suspect). New York looks like it could go either way at this point. Its numbers aren't catastrophic, but they're unimpressive all the same - worse than a European country of similar size and population density. And they're still more locked down than average after all this time and several phases of "reopening." A bit of complacency and I'm sure the infection curve will go right back to where it was in March.
NY isn't a success story of any means. They got killed, locked down, and still haven't really opened up, so its hard to know what their plan is/was for going forward and if that will work. This trend is something I think my point that I've been trying to make is.
On July 26 2020 17:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2020 15:28 cLutZ wrote:On July 26 2020 04:54 JimmiC wrote:
You would at this point people would figure out how serious this given that now it is happening happening in a bunch of states at the same time. But given how it had happened in, Italy, Spain and New York before this. It appears that the US needs it to become a huge problem with many deaths very locally to have it make and impact.
Bonus of things I think now everyone who participates in these threads is on board with it being a real issue and that measures are needed. What people seem to be unable to acknowledge is that the initial lockdowns failed. This is probably because of the sunk cost fallacy, which most normal humans generally apply. Because lockdowns failed, generally,* the eventual state of all places will be a result of the underlying customs, and people of that place, or you will wait for vaccine +6 months. Places with better environmental advantages (initially the US South, but now places that are more temperate like Europe because the South uses so much air conditioning in the summer) will look good, but eventually everyone hits their wave. This will obviously hit different places differently. NYC.did very badly initially, and now it looks ok. This is either because it has already burnt through the vulnerable (which is different and much lower than the 70% herd immunity number) or because it's super locked down still and will simply re-explode after. Florida looked good before (probably because of lack of indoorness) and now looks bad (Air conditioning primary suspect). I feel like comparing inter-country based on the rawest stats is like comparing German World Cup coaches with Australian coaches, and thinking the German coaches are obviously better. Maybe, but they also had huge advantages. From a pandemic POV, the US is the most disadvantaged 1st world country, probably by an order of magnitude because of demographics and borders. * In the West . Also I agree that the US is the most disadvantaged 1st world country from a pandemic POV and I did expect the densely populated american areas to be the hardest hit western areas, but for entirely different reasons from what you cite, those being a) incredibly fragmented society and media, some very influential actors pushing the idea that it's not a big deal b) worse social net/worker rights/daycare options meaning many people have less of an option to stay home/WFH c) lack of trust in government among the population. While I get what you mean about borders (between states I assume), what do you mean with citing demographics? Younger average population meaning more people don't care? (It's also an advantage in making it less deadly! )
By "borders" I mean among US states, and an unsecured border with an extremely poor country (Mexico) that by all accounts has an out of control pandemic situation. If you look at TX/AZ/NM/CA many of their hotspots are border towns.
By Demographics I'm referring to stories like this: www.webmd.com, which I would consider something of a "nice guy" take. Realistically, they are both hardest hit, and spreading it the most. Also this dynamic is whats created a fragmented society and lack of trust in government in the first place.
On July 26 2020 17:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:I'd say yeah, then the lockdown worked. Looking at any of the graphs for spain at worldometers tells me that the lockdowns were greatly successful. Compare to how it looks in the USSpain had a month and a half from may- mid july where the daily case load was like 5% of the late march/early april peak. in the US, there's never more than a slight reduction. Now, if you look at a state by state basis (say, new york, you can find examples that look more like what you found in european countries, but then I would also say that after the initial bungling, New York has done a pretty good job. (Which, again, is comparable to western european countries - many had too slow of a response initially, but once the response happened, it was successful.) That it's not economically/socially sustainable to keep an indefinite lockdown is another matter - but I'd say the data clearly shows that lockdowns have worked.
Seems to me that if that's your definition of success, then yes, but my definition of a successful lockdown is that it cuts cases severely enough that your follow up track and trace easily handles the remnants so you keep R<1 from that point on. I do not think they were a success by that standard. Also, generally, to do that, a successful lockdown would last less than a month.
|
As far as schools go I feel like I am sympathetic to both sides of the issue. A major concern of mine is that in the US with both parents working what is to be done with younger children (<10 years old)? I know many of us are fortunate to be able to work from home but for those who arent how are parents going to deal with this? It would have been better had the pandemic occured in the 1950s. I dont see a good solution for this. Children could be sent to government funded day care but whats the difference between that and a school? Other than maybe younger care takers?
What about only having in person school for grade school children?
|
On July 27 2020 06:11 SC-Shield wrote:
Are things worse than in March or April? Because from reading news it sounds like the virus is escalating. Cannot be locked down until Christmas either...
This rather depend what country you live in. For many EU contries way better, but global it is overall worse.
Also we are begin ing to see a raise again in many contries after a decrease or stagnation.
|
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32716073/
I know we discussed this as preliminary data a few months? ago now. It looks like getting your vitamins is good. Specifically Vitamin D (Although others can't hurt I guess)
Results: Mean vitamin D serum level of 1,368 patients, was 22.9 nmol/L (21.9-23.8). Significant heterogeneity was found (I2 = 99.9%, P< 0.001). Patients with poor prognosis (N=634) had significantly lower serum levels of vitamin D compared to those with good prognosis (N=669), representing an adjusted standardized mean difference of -5.12 (95% Cl= -9.14 to -1.10, P = 0.012).
There's strong correlation between good vitamin D levels, and better outcomes.
Get your sunshine, avoid skin cancer and enjoy summer.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
There certainly is precedent for respiratory illnesses being less severe in the summer than winter. Though the coronavirus clearly is far from gone right now - I wonder if the summer months contribute to the lower apparent mortality? For one, sunlight is a good source of Vitamin D.
I guess we will see what happens to mortality rates in the colder months, now that testing is more widespread than in the first wave.
|
On July 28 2020 16:18 LegalLord wrote:
There certainly is precedent for respiratory illnesses being less severe in the summer than winter. Though the coronavirus clearly is far from gone right now - I wonder if the summer months contribute to the lower apparent mortality? For one, sunlight is a good source of Vitamin D.
I guess we will see what happens to mortality rates in the colder months, now that testing is more widespread than in the first wave.
No real need to wait. We can probably figure out whether that is at all true by looking at Australia, South Africa and Brazil.
|
On July 27 2020 06:11 SC-Shield wrote:
Are things worse than in March or April? Because from reading news it sounds like the virus is escalating. Cannot be locked down until Christmas either...
Here in Germany and in Netherlands it's more like January/ February where you heard / read stuff about Covid in the news in other countries (Then it was China, now it's US/ Brazil/ India mostly). Work life continues pretty normal'ish how it would after a "standard" financial crisis.
Some mask usage is still in place and the mandatory distance rules ofc. Schools and other child education services still having some minor troubles, but manageable I feel. Even concerts and stuff are allowed again to some degree.
Soon there will be corona test concerts where they want to test with how much people and how often you come in contact to make a risk assessment of some sort
|
Zurich15342 Posts
And not surprisingly, with relaxed measures and attitudes, case numbers are going up again in Germany. It's still on a very manageable level, but the effect of less distancing, summer travel, and less compliant mask wearing is starting to be reflected in new case numbers.
|
In Belgium the second wave has pretty much started. 50+% of new cases come from the province/city of Antwerp.
There's talk on the news of 'super spreaders' and weddings being responsible.
Our social bubbles have been lowered to same 5 ppl in a month, no other measures yet though.
When we hit these numbers in the 1st wave we were already in lockdown, now we're more or less continuing as normal lol, let's see how that goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
