Coronavirus Thread - mod note post 23 & 541

[MBH]

Would you like a sincere answer to this?

But the short version is, no, there's nothing to suggest a core concept of epidemiology for the last 100 years is suddenly turned on its head.

There's a dozen other explanations, including the one you bring up constantly - that testing and reporting numbers are variable.

Really.
There's nothing in epidemiology saying that other immunity you've built up can't give you immunity to COVID-19?
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-scientists-uncover-sars-cov-specific-cell-immunity.html
"A Singapore study has uncovered the presence of virus-specific T cell immunity in people who recovered from COVID-19 and SARS, as well as some healthy study subjects who had never been infected by either virus."
"Our team also tested uninfected healthy individuals and found SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in more than 50 percent of them. This could be due to cross-reactive immunity obtained from exposure to other coronaviruses, such as those causing the common cold, or presently unknown animal coronaviruses. It is important to understand if this could explain why some individuals are able to better control the infection," said Professor Antonio Bertoletti, from Duke-NUS' Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID) programme, who is the corresponding author of this study.


I'm sitting here looking at moving case average that has risen almost 400 percent as the moving death average has dropped by another 33 percent.

All as our lovely governor threatens to clamp down.

 

[Bench]

Really.
There's nothing in epidemiology saying that other immunity you've built up can't give you immunity to COVID-19?
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-scientists-uncover-sars-cov-specific-cell-immunity.html
"A Singapore study has uncovered the presence of virus-specific T cell immunity in people who recovered from COVID-19 and SARS, as well as some healthy study subjects who had never been infected by either virus."
"Our team also tested uninfected healthy individuals and found SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in more than 50 percent of them. This could be due to cross-reactive immunity obtained from exposure to other coronaviruses, such as those causing the common cold, or presently unknown animal coronaviruses. It is important to understand if this could explain why some individuals are able to better control the infection," said Professor Antonio Bertoletti, from Duke-NUS' Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID) programme, who is the corresponding author of this study.

That's completely different than suggesting the foundation of herd immunity is, as you said, "bullshit."

Those people listed there who are experiencing few symptoms could still very well be spreading the virus, despite not getting sick.

 

[MBH]

If the Governor is going to create laws by stroke of a pen, they better have sunset provisions.

 

[MBH]

That's completely different than suggesting the foundation of herd immunity is, as you said, "bullshit."

Those people listed there who are experiencing few symptoms could still very well be spreading the virus, despite not getting sick.

If it has the same effect, who cares?
If people who've had the common cold are believed to have some immunity to COVID, then maybe this thing is what it is.

Maybe Michigan and Sweden are largely done with the first wave.
Maybe the lesson here to any many populated area is this: adhere to social distancing or you're going to have a death rate like Michigan/Sweden/New York/New Jersey/Miami/Houston etc.

From my perspective, mask wearing is stupid at this point.
Maybe it's a nice government training exercise for the second wave.

But it's not going to stop anything in Michigan. Because there's nothing to stop in Michigan.

 

[MBH]

Let's be thankful how wrong people have been.

 

[MBH]

Look at this:


As we plan for phase 2, I hope the "leaders" in the state capitols and Washington DC are a lot smarter.

Let the young and healthy work.
Protect the vulnerable.

 

[Bench]

If it has the same effect, who cares?
If people who've had the common cold are believed to have some immunity to COVID, then maybe this thing is what it is.

It doesn't have the same effect. Not with everyone. You can still contagious despite having little to no symptoms. We've always known COVID has asymptomatic carriers, which is why even if you feel healthy, it's important to know you could still be spreading it to others.

This study was seeking to better understand the mechanisms of immunity, not to suggest a large percentage of the population is immune. They go at length to explain this study is for future therapeutic benefit.

So the irony here is that the study you linked is using their research as a platform for the development of a vaccine. A vaccine that would not be necessary if your position that we're already protected is true and that wearing a mask now is "stupid."

"While there have been many studies about SARS-CoV-2, there is still a lot we don't understand about the virus yet. What we do know is that T cells play an important role in the immune response against viral infections and should be assessed for their role in combating SARS-CoV-2, which has affected many people worldwide. Hopefully, our discovery will bring us a step closer to creating an effective vaccine," said Associate Professor Jenny Low, Senior Consultant, Department of Infectious Diseases, SGH, and Duke-NUS' EID programme.

In no way is their research suggesting anything you asserted about herd immunity.

 

[Winger98]

Let's be thankful how wrong people have been.

That post is claiming the government commissioned a study that expected 80% of Minnesota to contract Covid by the beginning of August. Does that sound at all likely to be from an actual study? Or at least taken accurately from a reputable source? Or does that sound like crap? Because that sounds like crap. And considering the vagueness of their bio, I'm not sure why they should be taken for credible at face value in the first place.

 

[Bench]

That post is claiming the government commissioned a study that expected 80% of Minnesota to contract Covid by the beginning of August. Does that sound at all likely to be from an actual study? Or at least taken accurately from a reputable source? Or does that sound like crap? Because that sounds like crap. And considering the vagueness of their bio, I'm not sure why they should be taken for credible at face value in the first place.

Sometimes projections actually are created for a worst case scenario. This is where you get a lot of misinformation spread about how right and wrong the field of epidemiology has been during this pandemic. You'll see sensationalized graphs and headlines that show it was all a bunch of panic and nonsense, when in reality, those figures were never intended to show how things would go after measures are being taken by individuals and businesses.

Minnesota released model data that contrasts "unmitigated" numbers in comparison to numbers that include safeguards. In addition to that, they have always release the uncertainty for each model - that is, how much it could be wrong one way or another.

You can actually access all of this for yourself here:
Minnesota COVID-19 Modeling / COVID-19 Updates and Information - State of Minnesota

At the end of June, Minnesota has started revising their modeling, in the wake of actually having information here about things in the US.
Minnesota will update its COVID-19 modeling to forecast possible second wave

Gildemeister said the updated modeling will benefit from the latest information about the outbreak in Minnesota. Earlier versions were more reliant on the origins of the pandemic in China and its spread to Europe.

Modeling in Minnesota has been politically controversial, with Republicans questioning the high death counts of initial models and questioning whether they pushed Walz to prolong an economically crippling stay-at-home order. Nearly 800,000 unemployment insurance claims have been filed since the start of the pandemic.

The latest state models predicted that Minnesota would see 1,441 deaths from COVID-19 by the end of May and a peak of cases on June 29, under a scenario by which its stay-at-home order ended on May 18. The actual death count at the end of the month was 1,050.

Gildemeister said the latest data on the pandemic in Minnesota will increase the precision of modeling, though he stressed that it was designed to assess how social policies would reduce deaths and cases — not to predict precise COVID-19 counts.

There's been a ton of transparency around the entire process. I've been really pleased as a resident here with how easy it has been for me to find out what information they are using, how they acquired it, and how they plan on using it to strike a balance between safety and resuming economic function.

EDIT:

And for those that have an honest interest in understanding why the models are still useful and how they arrive at numbers that seem to contradict reality at times, this has been an ongoing discussion since May. Much of it is educating the public what these values mean in the bigger picture and how our teams arrive at this data.

Why was UMN coronavirus model wrong about deaths by Memorial Day?

In this sense, the models such as the U’s are designed less about short-term projections — such as how many deaths by Memorial Day — and more about the shape of the virus’ curve and the ultimate number of cases and deaths.

The U’s model currently projects between 16,000 and 44,000 deaths over the next year — and, importantly, it envisions ways that number could climb, such as the following chain reaction: remove all restrictions today, which leads to rapidly more mingling, which leads to a steep spike in cases, followed by a steep spike in hospitalizations and ICU demand, which overwhelms hospitals and leads to people dying because they can’t get life-saving medical care they need.

On the other hand, the model projects that gradually easing restrictions leads to a more gradual rise in cases that the hospital system can ultimately handle.

Officials call this the model’s “directional” value — an adjective they frequently employ but one that appears to leave many unsatisfied.

Another odd facet of the model’s projections released in mid-May: They only accounted for real-world data through April 25. So what looked like projections for the next week and a half — from May 13 to Memorial Day — were in fact projections that looked a month out.

Note the different models suggest far different outcomes based upon the steps taken by our community.

And a response has been issued to critics.

Stefan Gildemeister, the state health economist who has acted as a liaison between the state and the U’s modeling team, said that while the number of deaths projected by the model is higher than reality, the direction is the same: up. Modelers will continue to tweak the model to try to make it better match reality, but, he said, the bones are solid.

“We know the model varies around a certain number of deaths in the state, but that doesn’t distress us because what we’re really looking at is the disease kinetics over the course of a full year,” Gildemeister said.

He urged people to look less at actual figures and more at the big picture — and to remember that the state is still observing the effects of disease spread that was suppressed under stay-at-home orders that are now expired.

“Putting out an estimate of mortality serves a general story, and that general story is a disease that will continue to affect Minnesota in a very significant way and, as we’re coming out of the shade of restrictions, we know that cases will continue to increase as we keep opening up,” Gildemeister said. “We’re still approaching 1,000 deaths. … If somebody wants to wag a finger and say the mortality is high and maybe the aggregate mortality will be off, well, I guess they’re entitled to that opinion.”

 

[MBH]

That post is claiming the government commissioned a study that expected 80% of Minnesota to contract Covid by the beginning of August. Does that sound at all likely to be from an actual study? Or at least taken accurately from a reputable source? Or does that sound like crap? Because that sounds like crap. And considering the vagueness of their bio, I'm not sure why they should be taken for credible at face value in the first place.

Minnesota Public Radio
March 23 update on COVID-19 in MN: 40-80 percent of Minnesotans could get virus, Walz says
Winger, these models - the models used for the drastic and very painful lockdowns that have decimated the economy all over the world - were flat out wrong.

And rather than change tact when we learned they were wrong - we've continued down the path.

It's astounding that anyone let's Gov. Whitmer talk like she's going to shut down Michigan again.... when the deaths per day is literally 1/14th of what they were - and have been for a month.

It's time address the reality of the situation before they do more damage.

Open up. Return to school.
Start planning for how you protect the vulnerable if a winter wave strikes.

 

[Red Stanley]

Are you referring to the difference between airborne and droplet protections?

Or are you suggesting the medical community is split on the usefulness of masks? Because the usefulness part is not really a serious debate, as every hospital has some kind of mask policy and has always offered masks for folks even long before this virus. The one I work at had stations throughout the hospital with disposable masks... Well, until COVID wiped out the mask supply. Point is, cloth masks have always been a recommended tool.

Homemade masks are an imperfect solution. They are only adequate for droplet protections. Large particulate. They do not filter out COVID-19, for example. For that you would need a true respirator with a fitted seal. Doctors and staff that worked with infectious diseases would frequently have these available already.

But... cloth masks do reduce viral load distributed both outgoing and incoming. If you cough with a cloth mask on, the amount of virus that spreads off into the air is reduced significantly. Not entirely, but it helps a lot. Likewise, you are less likely to directly breathe in a large viral load with a mask over your face.

Viral load refers to how much you actually breath in. It's quite possible to inhale a little virus and not get sick. Or if you do, it will not be as severe.

Also take into consideration that spread is often done through touching a surface then your face and vice versa. Masks help cut this down as well.

Among experts in epidemiology, over 85% plan on wearing them until at least the winter. And over 50% for at least a year. Only 4% said they would stop wearing them now.

So it's not really a big split in the community about the usefulness of masks. I hope all this helps shed a little light on the we use them and how professionals overwhelming recommend they are used now.

When 511 Epidemiologists Expect to Fly, Hug and Do 18 Other Everyday Activities Again

Good info, thank you. I have been doing some research and there are a whole lot of articles on the unproven usefulness of homemade cloth masks. It stands to reason that it's better than nothing.

 

[Bench]

Minnesota Public Radio
March 23 update on COVID-19 in MN: 40-80 percent of Minnesotans could get virus, Walz says
Winger, these models - the models used for the drastic and very painful lockdowns that have decimated the economy all over the world - were flat out wrong.

You understand 40%-80% infection still feels like a very reasonable number right now, right? The statement he said was regarding the pandemic "running its course." There's no way this ends without hitting that range or a vaccine is created.

You keep citing these articles that don't support at all what you're suggesting. They were not flat out wrong.

All the numbers the state of Minnesota used, the models, and their projections for all different scenarios AND the data for error are available to you here:
Minnesota COVID-19 Modeling / COVID-19 Updates and Information - State of Minnesota

Your confidence you display in undermining the University of Minnesota School of Public Health and their information is the kind of hubris you only see when you're an undisputed expert in your field or you're woefully unequipped to understand what you're reading.

 

[Bench]

Good info, thank you. I have been doing some research and there are a whole lot of articles on the unproven usefulness of homemade cloth masks. It stands to reason that it's better than nothing.

That is entirely the point. It's the best we can do in a bad situation.

Ideally we'd all have N95 fitted respirators and face shields. But barring that, a simple cloth covering is the best policy one can recommend to the general population. It's cheap, easy to use, and offers very little restriction to the individual. Remember, this only needs to be used in public spaces where you're going to be within arms reach of folks.

I wear my mask when I leave my apartment to walk my dog. I don't wear it while I'm walking my dog.

There's been some limited research on what kinds of fabrics to use for your reusable mask. The best information I've found shows you should have one that has a nice seal around your face, with some kind of pinch mechanism in the nose piece you can form to your face. Also, thicker fabrics are better than thinner. They simply catch more particles. I've seen some that suggest multiple types of fabric could act as a better filter. But they are also harder to breath in. I have a really thick one that I absolutely hate having on when it's hot, but it's probably my best bet in a crowded area.

Once you've been in a crowded space, it's good practice to wash your mask before use next time. Drying in direct sunlight is a great way to disinfect and air it out after a quick wash.

I don't feel confident with my mask on at the grocery store, but it's absolutely better than nothing. And the more people are using them, the more effective they become - due to aforementioned reduction of viral load into the environment.

Thanks for listening to my mask TED talk.

 

[MBH]

You understand 40%-80% infection still feels like a very reasonable number right now, right? The statement he said was regarding the pandemic "running its course." There's no way this ends without hitting that range or a vaccine is created.

You keep citing these articles that don't support at all what you're suggesting. They were not flat out wrong.

All the numbers the state of Minnesota used, the models, and their projections for all different scenarios AND the data for error are available to you here:
Minnesota COVID-19 Modeling / COVID-19 Updates and Information - State of Minnesota

Your confidence you display in undermining the University of Minnesota School of Public Health and their information is the kind of hubris you only see when you're an undisputed expert in your field or you're woefully unequipped to understand what you're reading.

The death forecasts were flat out wrong.
Just like the original Imperial College study was flat out wrong.
I'm thankful they are wrong.

 

[Winger98]

Minnesota Public Radio
March 23 update on COVID-19 in MN: 40-80 percent of Minnesotans could get virus, Walz says
Winger, these models - the models used for the drastic and very painful lockdowns that have decimated the economy all over the world - were flat out wrong.

40-80%. Okay, so lets look at this article. If you're saying it's the source for the graph, that doesn't make the graph look better. First, it gives a range and Anonymous Twitter Person conveniently took the high range. Then dated the graph three months after the source material. And while making the graph just threw in a hypothetical end date because Walz didn't just say 40-80% would get the virus, but may get the virus by the time the pandemic runs its course. Which could be another year from now. Or it could be another month. Hell, it could be two weeks from now, but I sort of doubt it.

And considering this was back in March, it was also before Minny adopted any real mitigation efforts. Walz even said he had to look at other models to see what might be the best action for Minny to take. So we don't know if this study that spit out 40-80% by the eventual end of the pandemic included any mitigation efforts or not.

I get you're tired of the covid hassle in your state. I'm pretty damn tired of it in Ohio, too. And I get that you think it's all become an overblown election tool. But the way these sources are being used and misquoted...it's just false. I know I'm coming off as a bit of a jerk here, but it's not like there is a disagreement between two established, respected sources. things like that graph are just a blatant misrepresentation, and it's wrong.

edit: or I guess what Bench said. I need to close out and refresh when I leave my replies open too long before posting.

 

[Bench]

The death forecasts were flat out wrong.
Just like the original Imperial College study was flat out wrong.
I'm thankful they are wrong.

We all are. But that's not the entire picture. Which model are you using to say they were flat out wrong? There were multiple. They are all linked in that previous post for you, so you can tell me which one you want to pick apart. It's important, because each one considers different scenarios.

And it does not suggest the policies put into place didn't have a tangible and positive impact. Please read the response to this from May.

Why was UMN coronavirus model wrong about deaths by Memorial Day?

Keep in mind as Minnesota has been reopening this summer, so have followed the number of COVID-19 cases. At this time, the sharp rise has many asking for a statewide requirement for masks in public places. Seeing as you have called masks "stupid" in this very thread, I'm sure you're going to love it. But we are double our current target rate.

Rise in unknown COVID-19 sources amplifies call to wear masks

Minnesota has seen a 10 percentage-point increase since June 20 in the rate of infections that state contact tracers can’t tie back to likely community sources — such as spouses, co-workers or drinking buddies. The rate of unknown community transmissions reached 34% on July 8, above the state target of 30%.

If more cases come from unknown sources, that prevents health officials from identifying specific individuals with exposure risks and strengthens the need for blanket protections such as mask-wearing and social distancing, said Kris Ehresmann, state infectious disease director.

“We know that a significant number of cases may be asymptomatic,” Ehresmann said, so waiting for symptoms to emerge before taking precautions “doesn’t necessarily work.”

State health officials warned that the rising trend of COVID-19 cases could upset plans to reopen schools in the fall and allow expanded capacities at restaurants and businesses. New COVID-19 cases are being confirmed in Minnesota through lab testing at a rate above 10 per 100,000 people per day right now — more than double the state’s target rate of 5 per 100,000.

As a topic crossover, note the part how masks play a significant role in reducing asymptomatic spread of the disease.

 

[MBH]

The policies Whitmer and other states that have been through the ringer are closing the barn after the horses went running.
Meanwhile, another study on T Cells and immunity
SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls
It's kind of creepy how badly some people want there to be no chance for herd immunity.

 

[Bench]

Meanwhile, another study on T Cells and immunity
SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls
It's kind of creepy how badly some people want there to be no chance for herd immunity.

Another study, eh? How interesting. Well done. You're getting really good at reading these academic papers.

Except...

That's exactly the same study from the other article you linked. I know this because I read it, so it was pretty easy to spot all the same authors, the same publication, and literally the same everything.

Once again, this isn't suggesting we have some innate herd immunity to COVID-19 due to previous viral exposures. If that were remotely true, it wouldn't be a worldwide pandemic on this scale. It's discovering why some people are reacting so well and others are not, and noting what immune response those who do not have symptoms are displaying. By studying this, they can target what kind of immune response to trigger in vaccines.

But don't take my word for it:
"Hopefully, our discovery will bring us a step closer to creating an effective vaccine," said Associate Professor Jenny Low, Senior Consultant

You might recognize Jenny Low's name there from the paper you read twice.

 

[jkutswings]

Open up. Return to school.
Start planning for how you protect the vulnerable if a winter wave strikes.

Hell. To. The. No.

You put kids back in classrooms now, and you're absolutely begging for this to spiral out of control.

Not to mention the notion of protecting the vulnerable. Are these individuals to remain in a bubble? If so, for those requiring caregivers, are said caregivers also to remain in a bubble? If so, realize that a good portion of the vulnerable are the same children you just advocated sending back to school, and those parents are supposed to remain isolated with them while also rejoining the workforce.

Nobody is saying that the world should roll a boulder in front of their house and hibernate 100% of the time until there's a vaccine. But schools during the fall months are a petri dish when there's just colds and flu going around, let alone COVID-19.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Well, Trump is still backing Fauci ... for now. Fauci's testimony about masks was very interesting. I'd like to know who recommended to misinform the general public for the sake of making sure medical professionals didn't run out of masks.

Goals change over time, Fauci said this back when Donald Trump disbanded the pandemic response team, didn't take the threat seriously, didn't maintain a stockpile of PPE and then told states that they are on their own. The initial goal back in March and April was to protect the healthcare system from getting completely over run. This was also a novel virus we had very little data on other than what we gathered from China. Of course Trump had already removed our health officials from China where we could have had first hand reports.

I get it, you want to play gotcha despite the fact Fauci's opinion has followed the science. The one fact you seem unwilling to acknowledge is Trump has been totally incompetent and has made the situation orders of magnitude worse.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Hell. To. The. No.

You put kids back in classrooms now, and you're absolutely begging for this to spiral out of control.

Not to mention the notion of protecting the vulnerable. Are these individuals to remain in a bubble? If so, for those requiring caregivers, are said caregivers also to remain in a bubble? If so, realize that a good portion of the vulnerable are the same children you just advocated sending back to school, and those parents are supposed to remain isolated with them while also rejoining the workforce.

Nobody is saying that the world should roll a boulder in front of their house and hibernate 100% of the time until there's a vaccine. But schools during the fall months are a petri dish when there's just colds and flu going around, let alone COVID-19.

Kellyanne Conway has indicated the president and first lady aren't sure if Barron will go back to school in the fall. This is an entirely reasonable question, right? But the president is sure your kids should be back in school. In fact he's extorting schools should they not re-open.

He doesn't care about you or your kids. He has consistently downplayed the virus and pushed for re-opening with no plan for mitigating the spread of the virus. If that's not incompetence - or worse - I don't know what would be.

 

[MBH]

Hell. To. The. No.

You put kids back in classrooms now, and you're absolutely begging for this to spiral out of control.

Why's that? Our date rate is about 1/15th of what it was in April.
Hospitalizations are a fraction of what they were. Of those who need hospitals, fewer are seeing critical care.

We didn't close schools to save every life in the world. We closed schools to prevent a spread, fearing it would overwhelm our medical system.
That didn't happen.

Not to mention the notion of protecting the vulnerable. Are these individuals to remain in a bubble? If so, for those requiring caregivers, are said caregivers also to remain in a bubble?

So when the second wave comes , your solution is 3 months of complete shutdown with everyone in the bubble?
Who pays for that?

If so, realize that a good portion of the vulnerable are the same children you just advocated sending back to school, and those parents are supposed to remain isolated with them while also rejoining the workforce.

COVID-19 is no more threat to children than the flu.
You don't close schools for the flu.

I have concerns. Teachers with weak immune systems - They should be part of the online teams, working from home.
Students who have weak immune systems or who live with grandparents - perhaps they should learn from home.

Nobody is saying that the world should roll a boulder in front of their house and hibernate 100% of the time until there's a vaccine. But schools during the fall months are a petri dish when there's just colds and flu going around, let alone COVID-19.

Sweden's health agency says open schools did not spur pandemic spread among children

Most parents I talked to said online learning was a disaster. Now, if they return to online learning this fall, it's going to be more robust and rigorous. But are teachers really prepared for that? Are parents?

Who's taking care of the kids, by the way, while mommy and daddy are at work?

 

[MBH]

Another study, eh? How interesting. Well done. You're getting really good at reading these academic papers.

Except...

That's exactly the same study from the other article you linked. I know this because I read it, so it was pretty easy to spot all the same authors, the same publication, and literally the same everything.

Once again, this isn't suggesting we have some innate herd immunity to COVID-19 due to previous viral exposures. If that were remotely true, it wouldn't be a worldwide pandemic on this scale. It's discovering why some people are reacting so well and others are not, and noting what immune response those who do not have symptoms are displaying. By studying this, they can target what kind of immune response to trigger in vaccines.

But don't take my word for it:
"Hopefully, our discovery will bring us a step closer to creating an effective vaccine," said Associate Professor Jenny Low, Senior Consultant

You might recognize Jenny Low's name there from the paper you read twice.

If nobody's dying from it because of herd immunity that already exists, I won't be voluntarily taking a vaccine.

 

[MBH]

Here's a great discussion on COVID-19 and what we should be thinking about.

 

[jkutswings]

If nobody's dying from it because of herd immunity that already exists, I won't be voluntarily taking a vaccine.

I think at this point the best thing to do is shake hands, agree to disagree, and part ways on this topic, because I don't see us even having enough common ground to further a discussion.