Coronavirus Thread

[Deleted member 2897]

Americans have very short memories & we’re frequently not even aware of what’s going on in our own country.

Big deal. I'm sure folks have been arrested here for less than that. I'll bet there's more to the story, like drunk and disorderly, maybe. I've been in the military and I know how obnoxious these kids can get.

As for their efforts to stem coronavirus, their tactics are not possible here, nor should they be, but under the circumstances a little context is in order.
It wasn't to stifle democracy, it was to stop a pandemic.

I wasn’t arguing about why they were doing it, only that they were.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

COVID Tracking Project does a nice job with a weekly blog update.
https://covidtracking.com/blog/reco...italizations-rising-deaths-this-week-in-covid

For any that are interested they have a deep dive into FL data. The good, the bad, and what's missing.
https://covidtracking.com/blog/florida-covid-19-data
FL starting providing COVID hospitalizations this weekend so that is really helpful. They were around 7,500 earlier today. Total hospitalizations today nationwide is around 52K, the estimate for late March/early April at the peak is 70K.

Admiral Giroir, the coronavirus testing coordinator, said today that we need mask usage of about 90% to get this under control and also mentioned needing 10's of millions of additional tests a month.
"It's really essential to wear masks and for this to work we have to have like 90% of people wearing a mask in public in the hotspot areas, if we don't have that we will not get control of the virus,"

I think as bwelbo has mentioned before that at least the first half of July was already baked. Everything we are seeing now is due more to behavior awhile ago.
The CDC mobility reports that they are getting from cell usage suggests that more people were moving around over July 4th weekend than Memorial Day weekend. That's certainly concerning for what things might look like at the end of July/early August.

I really feel for all the school administrators who have to try to figure that out this year. I think there are some areas where it shouldn't be too difficult to have all the students in class. There are other areas where they will likely have to be more creative and maybe have the elementary students in school but have the older students in a more modified format of a couple of days a at school or remote. And then there are some areas that right now you probably can't even think of having school buildings open at any level and either have to delay opening or go virtual.

There are so many areas now with hotspots, not just in the SE and SW but some areas in the midwest and the mountain states that it is going to take a big effort again to get this under control.

That FL number today is sort of crazy. That is larger than every country in the world execept Brazil and India (and of course the US).


Don't know if anyone saw this but after partying last weekend that went viral the Dean of Students at Tulane sent an email to all students about their expectations for them in terms of holding parties and that if they didn't stick to the expectations they could be expelled.
https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_6e5dc0e8-c079-11ea-8292-7b3db291f48e.html

Unlike those countries (with populations 10-50x higher), Florida ran 150,000 tests today.

 

[WreckinGT]

We know other countries have reopened their schools, and done so successfully.
Not sure your third paragraph and your last one make sense....you don’t think we should reopen schools but believe we should do what has worked in other countries....which is reopEn schools. Huh?

How about we come up with similar plans then to ensure we have similar success. First, we wait until there is a significant and consistent decrease in cases before we reopen. Second, we bring back younger children first and have phases for other age groups while monitoring outbreaks. Third, we enforce strict social distancing with desks 6 feet apart. To accomplish this we will likely have to have morning and afternoon sessions as well as a strict mix of online and in person learning. We could also setup temporary classrooms outdoors in tents. Fourth, we require face masks for all older children and teachers/staff.

You on board? Probably not. There is no chance we do all of this, we likely won’t do any of it, which is why it seems foolish to assume we will be just as successful.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

NBC News messes up last night and interviewed a bunch of doctors asking if they’d send their kids back to school right now. It was unanimous with all of them that they would.

Some people are way overthinking this. Not 1 out of dozens of European countries has had an outbreak since sending kids back to school. That implies that using good hygiene, staying apart, and so on...and the nature of kids with COVID-19 is they don’t spread the disease. I don’t know where some of you all live, but where I do and a bunch of other places I’ve read about have all these things set into plans. We’ll likely start online due to the numbers, but as the numbers drop, they’ll move back to a hybrid and regular model. If your school district hasn’t made these sorts of plans, you might think about moving - what the hell have they been doing all spring and summer?

 

[YJMD]

A lot of people don’t wear helmets and seat belts and so on.

At least those choices don't put anyone else at risk. Maybe we should use dunk driving as a better example. Does anyone think people should be allowed to choose for themselves whether they are safe to drive?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

At least those choices don't put anyone else at risk. Maybe we should use dunk driving as a better example. Does anyone think people should be allowed to choose for themselves whether they are safe to drive?

Yea that’s a tough one, and don’t get me wrong, I’m all for masks and wear them without exception when I have a risk of being around other people (grocery store, etc). But how do you determine which 0.1% of the people who aren’t wearing masks are also positive asymptomatic carriers as opposed to the 99.9% who don’t have it? There is a 1 in 10,000 chance the person is dangerous but a 9999 in 10,000 chance the person is just an inconsiderate jerk.

 

[armeck]

NBC News messes up last night and interviewed a bunch of doctors asking if they’d send their kids back to school right now. It was unanimous with all of them that they would.

Some people are way overthinking this. Not 1 out of dozens of European countries has had an outbreak since sending kids back to school. That implies that using good hygiene, staying apart, and so on...and the nature of kids with COVID-19 is they don’t spread the disease. I don’t know where some of you all live, but where I do and a bunch of other places I’ve read about have all these things set into plans. We’ll likely start online due to the numbers, but as the numbers drop, they’ll move back to a hybrid and regular model. If your school district hasn’t made these sorts of plans, you might think about moving - what the hell have they been doing all spring and summer?

Not every place has a good plan. My school system, summed:

• Masks are encouraged, not required and not enforced.
• 3 ft. social distance
• Attempt to keep cohorts grouped, but only when possible.
• Buses full at usual capacity.
• Sports and clubs as usual.
• Contact tracing if anyone tests positive, good luck with that.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

By the numbers, about 23% of the population is under 18. Only a few percent of the COVID-19 cases are in that demographic, meaning that age group contracts the disease at less than 1/10th the regular rate. Deaths are hardly measurable, something like 0.03%. Meaning that age group dies at about 1/800th the regular rate. Also, those very few deaths have actually been from some other condition like meningoencephalitis later on and not a single death in a child has been reported from COVID-19 itself. I have read this assertion many times and have spent a ton of time trying to look through state news and data around the country and have been unable to find a death of a child from COVID-19 myself.

 

[684Bee]

NBC News messes up last night and interviewed a bunch of doctors asking if they’d send their kids back to school right now. It was unanimous with all of them that they would.

Some people are way overthinking this. Not 1 out of dozens of European countries has had an outbreak since sending kids back to school. That implies that using good hygiene, staying apart, and so on...and the nature of kids with COVID-19 is they don’t spread the disease. I don’t know where some of you all live, but where I do and a bunch of other places I’ve read about have all these things set into plans. We’ll likely start online due to the numbers, but as the numbers drop, they’ll move back to a hybrid and regular model. If your school district hasn’t made these sorts of plans, you might think about moving - what the hell have they been doing all spring and summer?

If you’re looking to govt schools to have used this time to proactively come up with a coherent plan, you’re looking in the wrong place. Private schools, maybe. Not govt schools.

 

[armeck]

By the numbers, about 23% of the population is under 18. Only a few percent of the COVID-19 cases are in that demographic, meaning that age group contracts the disease at less than 1/10th the regular rate. Deaths are hardly measurable, something like 0.03%. Meaning that age group dies at about 1/800th the regular rate. Also, those very few deaths have actually been from some other condition like meningoencephalitis later on and not a single death in a child has been reported from COVID-19 itself. I have read this assertion many times and have spent a ton of time trying to look through state news and data around the country and have been unable to find a death of a child from COVID-19 myself.

https://scdhec.gov/news-releases/so...-19-death-child-highest-reported-number-daily

 

[armeck]

By the numbers, about 23% of the population is under 18. Only a few percent of the COVID-19 cases are in that demographic, meaning that age group contracts the disease at less than 1/10th the regular rate. Deaths are hardly measurable, something like 0.03%. Meaning that age group dies at about 1/800th the regular rate. Also, those very few deaths have actually been from some other condition like meningoencephalitis later on and not a single death in a child has been reported from COVID-19 itself. I have read this assertion many times and have spent a ton of time trying to look through state news and data around the country and have been unable to find a death of a child from COVID-19 myself.

I'm less concerned with a child contracting and dying as I am of those 500 kids now being a virus spreader to or from their their households into other households. Additionally, I don't hold death as the sole focus of concern with getting the virus. There have been cases of children who fall ill and suffer greatly even if they do recover.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

https://scdhec.gov/news-releases/so...-19-death-child-highest-reported-number-daily

I live in S.C. - that’s the only child to have ever died here with COVID-19. They had another issue they were fighting.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I'm less concerned with a child contracting and dying as I am of those 500 kids now being a virus spreader to or from their their households into other households. Additionally, I don't hold death as the sole focus of concern with getting the virus. There have been cases of children who fall ill and suffer greatly even if they do recover.

Right, but at what number? It’s barely measurable. We can pick any number of things like the flu that have a significantly higher death rate in children.

 

[YJMD]

Yea that’s a tough one, and don’t get me wrong, I’m all for masks and wear them without exception when I have a risk of being around other people (grocery store, etc). But how do you determine which 0.1% of the people who aren’t wearing masks are also positive asymptomatic carriers as opposed to the 99.9% who don’t have it? There is a 1 in 10,000 chance the person is dangerous but a 9999 in 10,000 chance the person is just an inconsiderate jerk.

I don't think your numbers are accurate. But it's not a way I would want to examine this. Looking at peers, widespread mask usage appears to be a very important intervention in those countries who have sustainably kept R less than 1. If we extremely conservatively pick 0.5% mortality, 50% susceptible population remaining, completely ignoring the morbidity of cases and chance healthcare systems get overwhelmed, we are looking at a necessary intervention to prevent ~800,000 excess deaths. Is that compelling enough?

For reference, there are about 15k drunk driving fatalities per year. Drunk driving would have to increase more than 50x to hit that 800k number. I seriously doubt decriminalizing drunk driving would get us anywhere close to that, so why is it so compelling to restrict that freedom from people?

It's not a serious question. This isn't a fair analogy, and importantly it is unlikely that compulsory mask use alone would be effective at bringing R sustainably below 1. Most people would experience mask use as a bigger violation of personal freedom than restriction of drunk driving. Of course, that also relates to societal norms which are modifiable. See: Asia.

But the intent is to bring perspective to the table. Hopefully this exploration provokes a look from a taller perch.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I don't think your numbers are accurate. But it's not a way I would want to examine this. Looking at peers, widespread mask usage appears to be a very important intervention in those countries who have sustainably kept R less than 1. If we extremely conservatively pick 0.5% mortality, 50% susceptible population remaining, completely ignoring the morbidity of cases and chance healthcare systems get overwhelmed, we are looking at a necessary intervention to prevent ~800,000 excess deaths. Is that compelling enough?

For reference, there are about 15k drunk driving fatalities per year. Drunk driving would have to increase more than 50x to hit that 800k number. I seriously doubt decriminalizing drunk driving would get us anywhere close to that, so why is it so compelling to restrict that freedom from people?

It's not a serious question. This isn't a fair analogy, and importantly it is unlikely that compulsory mask use alone would be effective at bringing R sustainably below 1. Most people would experience mask use as a bigger violation of personal freedom than restriction of drunk driving. Of course, that also relates to societal norms which are modifiable. See: Asia.

But the intent is to bring perspective to the table. Hopefully this exploration provokes a look from a taller perch.

well that’s conflating two different things. Don’t get me wrong, like I said I totally believe in wearing masks. There is science from numerous studies that shows it prevents the spread of disease. I wear them all the time where it’s applicable. Anecdotally, the people in Asia who deal with these sorts of diseases all the time also wear them. But the math behind it is what it is. We are barely at 1% of the population having gotten the virus – and a fraction of that population was/is out spreading it asymptomatically where masks would have prevented it. So maybe it’s 500 to 1 or 1000 to 1. But the point is, if roughly half the people right now are wearing masks, the person that you see not wearing one is 99.9% a jerk and 0.1% dangerous. Or somewhere roughly thereabouts.

 

[BuzzStone]

South Carolina school systems are terrible with this plan. We have to make a choice if we send our children to school or move them to online before we know what the school plan is.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

South Carolina school systems are terrible with this plan. We have to make a choice if we send our children to school or move them to online before we know what the school plan is.

I couldn’t disagree more. The plan is there and has been there for all to see. There are three modes - all online, hybrid, or in school. They will be in one of those three depending on the case level. The end. If it bothers you, you can choose to go 100% online.

 

[bobongo]

I'm thinking on the one hand that it might make sense for parents to have a choice between online and in-school, but on the other hand it's hard to see under the circumstances why the schools couldn't just do it all online. It may be preferable in normal times to have in-school, personal instruction but is it that necessary? Students without computers could get one loaned to them by the school system, with federal or state assistance if needed although it might save money in other ways to have all the students online.

The only major factor against it would be the fact that some parents need to have some place to park their kids during the day.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I'm thinking on the one hand that it might make sense for parents to have a choice between online and in-school, but on the other hand it's hard to see under the circumstances why the schools couldn't just do it all online. It may be preferable in normal times to have in-school, personal instruction but is it that necessary? Students without computers could get one loaned to them by the school system, with federal or state assistance if needed although it might save money in other ways to have all the students online.

The only major factor against it would be the fact that some parents need to have some place to park their kids during the day.

Hete is South Carolinas plan - it’s been out about a month: http://dedicationtoeducation.com/

It’s designed to follow the science, Data, and recommendations of educational and health experts. The mode of school is different based on the number of cases in the area. So while you may not know where the cases will be a month from now, you should always know what mode you are heading towards based on where the cases are right now and how they are trending.

 

[GCdaJuiceMan]

I'm thinking on the one hand that it might make sense for parents to have a choice between online and in-school, but on the other hand it's hard to see under the circumstances why the schools couldn't just do it all online. It may be preferable in normal times to have in-school, personal instruction but is it that necessary? Students without computers could get one loaned to them by the school system, with federal or state assistance if needed although it might save money in other ways to have all the students online.

The only major factor against it would be the fact that some parents need to have some place to park their kids during the day.

Its not just computers and laptops. How many families don't have access to internet? That is a more difficult problem to solve. IMO the major factor against all online learning the anti social ramifications for the kids. Kids don't need to be hugging and sneezing and coughing on each other back in school but they need interaction with other kids. They will not get enough through a computer/phone camera.