Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[Coolthulhu]

I agree that WHO is problematic.

However, one of the general issues is that WHO rarely wants to say that countries are doing something wrong, instead they consistently urge countries to complement those measures with the working measures. Whether that means WHO don't believe the measures are sufficiently effective, or not effective at all is unclear.

For masks there are some concerns that people will think that they reduce transmission more than they do and thus ease physical distancing, and also that people will not handle the masks correctly and thus increase the spread by touching them. There are also indication that moisture in cloth masks increase the spread. Lab-tests of just the masks will suffice to answer that.

Sounds like one hell of an issue to me, given WHO's nature.

The concerns about masks making people more complacent are rather moot if social distancing measures are kept mandatory, and there are examples where social distancing is nigh-impossible but people are used to wearing masks already (East Asia) and have much better numbers than we do, not necessarily tied to authoritarian regimes but rather more effective contact-tracing & other stuff the government should take care of, not the uneducated general public. And let's not forget that while a portion of the population might become more complacent, another good portion of it is terrified by the (mandatory or at least widespread) use of masks to the point that they prefer staying at home.

As to the studies about masks and pretty much everything pertaining this pandemic, well, there are hundreds studies, none of which conclusive, and vastly contradictory between one-another. If you've been following the situation closely, you're bound to have noticed the refrains "Study A, B, and C suggest Y=1, whereas study D and E suggest that Y=0; additionally, a double-blind study F suggests that Y=2", leading to the inevitable "further research is needed" and shit-slinging among dissenting scientists. "Your sampling pool is tiny and you've got a huge conflict of interests!", "Your study wasn't a double-blind one so it's worth less than nothing!", we've all seen that even before this pandemic, we're seeing it amplified tenfold now.

[Grapemask]

So masks work now? I remember MMOC scientists declaring they don't stop covid 2 months ago.

Anyway, Sweden must be feeling good just chilling, not worried about any waves.

Ah steve, always here to spread Alternative Facts and Stats about Sweden. At this point it's got to just be trolling.

But as per masks, I still haven't seen any data that they're night and day effective. But it's just a numbers game. If a mask reduces the chance of spread by even 1%, on a planet of billions of people, you have saved a significant number of them. China doesn't wear masks because they stop viruses in their tracks. China wears masks because in a country of 1.4 billion people, even 1% of their population is a larger number of people than the largest city in the US. It's just one of a dozen things to chip away at statistics.

I still think it was fair to tell the public not to get them when this thing got started, because it would have been exponentially worse if our war-profiteers had successfully horded (more of) them at the start of all this. Hell, I still can't get an actual mask - the only ones I've been able to find (that fit) came from my job, and they only had masks because corporate owns a medical supply company. If doctors weren't able to get these masks, we wouldn't have doctors right now.

[breadisfunny]

They also did a lot of testing, contact tracing, and case isolation.

Maybe face masks work - but I fear that people jump on it as a quick-fix, since the other stuff is too complicated.

or too expensive.

[Kiri]

The world adapts to knowledge. 2 month's ago our knowledge of the virus was archaic... It still is.

It's not even that, to be honest. The point that I and others made back then was that masks alone are not enough, especially when people didn't use them properly. As well as concerns that telling people 'just wear a mask and you are completely fine' would lead to people being overconfident and lead to people buying and hording masks that professionals actually required.
Sadly, the concepts of context and nuance are lost on some people, so that was apparently taken as 'masks are worthless'.

[Gaidax]

So masks work now? I remember MMOC scientists declaring they don't stop covid 2 months ago.

You had a bunch of hare-brained people here fighting masks for all tooth and nail with some retarded logic that if something does not give you 100% complete protection, then it's better to not use it at all.

Thankfully our government here is not that inept, so we have to wear masks mandatory by law when outside or get fined. Certainly feels good to only have 258 dead and 58 ventilated country-wide.

[Forogil]

On the contrary. Aside from their inclusion of the infection rate data suggested by the New York study, the numbers are all consistent with that larger asymptomatic assumption.

Or in other words: if we ignore the numbers they give, and assume some other numbers that they don't give, then it makes sense.

Despite you not being able to "see how that would make sense", that same asymptomatic rate (~25:1) is also in line with the "2-4%" statement. In early April, the US had about 500k confirmed cases. That would equate to ~13m actual cases based on the same asymptomatic rate, which would be 3.96%.

If the US was one of the worst hit countries in early April (in terms of total number infected - not in terms of daily increase), which doesn't correspond to reality.

And an asymptomatic ratio of 25:1 doesn't make sense at all. There are some studies of indicating that 20-80% of cases are asymptomatic - but those studies are unclear, and more detailed studies suggest that the "asymptomatic cases" are mostly mildly symptomatic or pre-symptomatic.

The actual unconfirmed cases in many countries (including the US) are simply people that are symptomatic, but not tested.

Based on the New York data, however, I'd actually estimate it being closer to a 7:1 rate, which would put us at 1.1% in early April.

And then herd immunity in 2023 or so, not "well into 2021".

To what purpose would you use a number differently from the way it was very clearly stated, I wonder?

To show that there was a problem, and because they didn't state any ratio between actual and confirmed cases.

It may be that they knew - but it excluded it because they didn't like the headline of "John Hopkins predicts that there are 27 million infected in the US, and half a million daily cases", or they don't think current numbers will keep steady, or more likely that they didn't think clearly and just knew that herd immunity wouldn't be reached this year - so they assumed it would be the next year.

[PhaelixWW]

Reducing R below 1 by taking different measures is done on a country or state level; and there is no world government that can implement global measures - extreme or not.

Again, you're ignoring the context in order to attempt a goalpost shift.

However, that is not unique with those measures and the current extreme measures are not sustainable for a sufficient period on a country-level, and often implemented badly. The extreme measures are therefore already being lifted without having eradicated the disease - so it's a matter of extreme measures that we know for certain cannot be implemented for a sufficiently long time, and other measures that you doubt can last.

I don't disagree with the idea that lockdown measures are not indefinitely-sustainable, nor that the lockdowns were implemented poorly. I don't agree, however, that the decision to employ those measures was somehow wrong as a result.

Extensive testing, contact tracing, and case isolation can work - and be combined with lockdowns, but that's only implemented in a few places. It's not a matter of cost - https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/...9-on-the-cheap - just that people mistake "extreme measures" for "effective measures".

Sure, there are effective measures that should definitely be implemented. I'm not convinced that they are enough on their own, however. Not as a global policy guideline.

Places in which the population are less likely to conform with a change in established behavior and places that can't even achieve a well-implemented lockdown policy are also very unlikely to achieve much quick success with things like mass testing and effective contact tracing.

Kudos to the places that do, however; if some places can escape a lockdown while still seeing cases that continue to drop without any resurgence, then they will be very much the exception to the rule.

You are missing that children went back to school before she wrote her article, mixing "have been absent" with "have been absent all the time", and believing that worst-hit areas are representative.

And to claim that children were absent until mid-April is a misleading as absenteeism was high around April 3rd, but back to normal the week starting April 14th, and between those days schools were closed.

For someone who chides people on their critical thinking ability, you sure do sometimes seem to refrain from using any.

Attendance was demonstrably horrible for the three weeks from 3/16 to 4/3. Classes, as you said, were out for Easter but resumed the week of 4/13-4/17. The attendance numbers for that week probably started being widely announced by the middle of the following week, around 4/22.

The piece in question was published on 4/28, which means it was probably written the previous week. At the time of writing, the author might, might have had some information about that first week after Easter, but even then she'd still just have one week of 15-20% absenteeism to go along with the previous 3 weeks of 30-60% absenteeism.

All in all, her stating a 30-40% absenteeism during the timeframe of the pandemic seems to be pretty spot-on at the point at which the piece was written.

[Forogil]

or too expensive.

Yes that as well, contact tracing complicated and expensive (involving lots of persons), same with testing (which also involves PPE and some chemicals that are in short supply) - and people in self-isolation need food deliveries.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you're ignoring the context in order to attempt a goalpost shift.

Let's untangle this:
R can be reduced below 1 with appropriate long-term measures at least in some cases. They don't have to be extreme.
Some extreme measures have very little effect on R, and some make no sense at all.

I don't disagree with the idea that lockdown measures are not indefinitely-sustainable, nor that the lockdowns were implemented poorly. I don't agree, however, that the decision to employ those measures was somehow wrong as a result.

It isn't that they aren't indefinitely sustainable, it is that we are already seeing them being lifted without having sufficiently reduced the spread - and without having implemented other more effective measures.

Attendance was demonstrably horrible for the three weeks from 3/16 to 4/3.

In some areas it was horrible - in others a bit bad; and it's hard to untangle how much that was people staying home with symptoms or for other causes.

Classes, as you said, were out for Easter but resumed the week of 4/13-4/17. The attendance numbers for that week probably started being widely announced by the middle of the following week, around 4/22.

You assume that attendance numbers are widely collected and announced. Based on what?

[PhaelixWW]

Or in other words: if we ignore the numbers they give, and assume some other numbers that they don't give, then it makes sense.

Even when I literally did the math for you on the actual figures given in the statement, you still claim that it's "assumed". Oh, and you made sure to only quote the lead-in sentence and avoid quoting said actual math based on given numbers.

Yeah. That's just sad.

If the US was one of the worst hit countries in early April (in terms of total number infected - not in terms of daily increase), which doesn't correspond to reality.

Why are you going to such great lengths to ignore the fact that I have repeatedly stated that I disagree with their estimates?

Since you seem to be having a hard time internalizing this concept, I'll lay it out for you again in simple terms: (NY numbers aside), their numbers make mathematical sense; they're just wrong.

And an asymptomatic ratio of 25:1 doesn't make sense at all.

No, it doesn't. Glad you agree with me; it's what I've been saying all along.

The actual unconfirmed cases in many countries (including the US) are simply people that are symptomatic, but not tested.

Semantics. When people say "asymptomatic", what they almost always really mean is "infected, but not confirmed via test". I'm just going with the flow.

And then herd immunity in 2023 or so, not "well into 2021".

Which is why I stated that their estimate was wrong, sure. Doesn't mean their math wasn't internally consistent with a 25x asymptomatic [unconfirmed infected] case rate.

To show that there was a problem, and because they didn't state any ratio between actual and confirmed cases.

And yet, as I pointed out, if you actually used the math the lack of which you so wantonly bemoaned, then you can solve for their estimated ratio.

You complain that people can't do math... then don't bother to use it yourself.

...And then you bitch at people who did do the math, and then ignore the math as an "assumption" when it's written out for you.

Yeah, someone here has a problem with critical thinking, for sure.

[Svifnymr]

To be fair people are freaking out because they can't figure out how to clean their butts without toilet paper.

They're probably cleaning their ass with their masks... or their scissors.

[Teleros]

Big news if true from Italy:

https://www.radioradio.it/2020/05/co...&cn-reloaded=1

Via Google Translate:

The story you are about to read tells of a totally different Coronavirus emergency than what we have known so far.
A new narrative of the health crisis, out of the mainstream, from the opinion of the experts and from the daily routine of the pandemic data bulletin.

In fact, the numbers that today indicate more than 30 thousand deaths (243 more victims) and 217,185 thousand infections (1327 more) could be not only false, but also diametrically opposed. The virus would not cause any death, the first cases in Italy date back to last October and already a third of the population would have contracted it.

This was revealed by a shock study conducted by Professor Pasquale Bacco who together with a group of researchers carried out 7038 medical examinations starting from February. According to his story, there would be a story to be reversed and rewritten on a healthy basis. To find out his version of the facts, Luigia Luciani and Stefano Molinari interviewed Dr. Pasquale Bacco , a medical examiner and researcher.

Here is the intervention of prof. Pasquale Bacco at Work in Progress.



A third of the population has already been infected
“ We are a group of doctors and we work for an American company called Meleam and it has forty-one offices in Italy. Since the beginning of February, we have carried out 7038 medical visits with related serological kits.

Working on clinically healthy subjects, we went to check if there were antibodies in their blood for Covid . So if these subjects were more or less in contact with the virus.

Result : out of 7038 they gave us a national average of 34% of people already infected. We had a maximum point on Brescia around 49 and a minimum point in Sicily on 28-29 ".

First cases in October in the silence of the crisis unit
" At first we came into contact with the crisis unit . After 49% of Brescia, we went to the crisis unit in Rome, which was then forming, and we said these are names, surnames, addresses and everything. We have 49% of data that is perplexing. However, on a very large sample, at the time we had made 1700. So the possibility of error is practically zero .

But the important thing about Brescia is that not only were there 49% of positive subjects, but 74% of these had immunoglobulins G as immune memory. That is, they were not recent infections. Now, if we consider the sample number over the whole area, the high value of positivity and immunoglobulins G we must make a jump in the past of at least three and a half months.

The first cases are with certainty in October . When we presented these initial data to the embryo crisis unit, they made us talk to what was to be their consultant, who is a well-known virologist whom you all see on television by now. Which in the face of my grievances tells me: we in Brescia in my opinion are two. I tell him why and he answers me because it is so.

Now months later, when all our data are confirming, three Italian universities (Milan, Naples and Bari) have asked us for the study. In August we will start with another 7000 visits. Now we have created a task force with 500 doctors in Italy. We are seeing things that in the coming weeks will bring us even more sensational data " .

False death count and unnecessary vaccine
“ Keep in mind that I'm a coroner and I do autopsy tests. We have seen not only in the laboratory, but also with the tests on the deceased that it is a trivial virus . He has no ability to kill subjects who have no particular conditions.

We are talking about a virus, Covid, which is absolutely trivial. The death toll is all false. This virus is not capable of killing in any way.

Covid suffers from the weather and on television they still say it isn't. Create immunity, even if limited. Do you want to know the biggest lie in the world? Even now on television they talk about vaccine . We have all seen that the virus has already mutated.

You get one vaccine a year for the flu virus because one of the characteristics of Coronavirus is that it changes. Then this virus has already mutated. Would you get the Covid vaccine in June?

As a free doctor I say that if we talk about vaccine for Covid-19 we talk about gossip. If we talk about a thousand deaths a day we talk about chatter . The same if it is not admitted that the climate completely eliminates the virus. Come to the lab with me.

To verify that the virus dies with heat one does a very simple thing which is to increase the temperature. Do you know how much this operation costs? 7 euros and 80 cents. And we did it in early March. The whole country had to be told that this virus dies in May . "

[Forogil]

Sounds like one hell of an issue to me, given WHO's nature.

The concerns about masks making people more complacent are rather moot if social distancing measures are kept mandatory, and there are examples where social distancing is nigh-impossible but people are used to wearing masks already (East Asia) and have much better numbers than we do, not necessarily tied to authoritarian regimes but rather more effective contact-tracing & other stuff the government should take care of, not the uneducated general public. And let's not forget that while a portion of the population might become more complacent, another good portion of it is terrified by the (mandatory or at least widespread) use of masks to the point that they prefer staying at home.

Yes, and some claim that masks (when only a few wear them) are very effective in maintaining physical distance - as others stay clear of them.
Obviously if everyone wears masks that effect will likely disappear.

However, even if masks are effective in Asia where people are used to them doesn't imply that they will be immediately effective in other places, where people aren't used to them - unless there are big information campaigns on proper use.

As to the studies about masks and pretty much everything pertaining this pandemic, well, there are hundreds studies, none of which conclusive, and vastly contradictory between one-another. If you've been following the situation closely, you're bound to have noticed the refrains "Study A, B, and C suggest Y=1, whereas study D and E suggest that Y=0; additionally, a double-blind study F suggests that Y=2", leading to the inevitable "further research is needed" and shit-slinging among dissenting scientists. "Your sampling pool is tiny and you've got a huge conflict of interests!", "Your study wasn't a double-blind one so it's worth less than nothing!", we've all seen that even before this pandemic, we're seeing it amplified tenfold now.

That is always a problem, and here it's worse since some studies suggest that masks may increase the spread (moist cloth masks, and people touching them) so one cannot even say that it's doesn't do any harm.

Of course, double-blind study isn't really relevant in this case.

[PhaelixWW]

R can be reduced below 1 with appropriate long-term measures at least in some cases. They don't have to be extreme.

That's not at all inconsistent with what I said, with the caveat that the definition of "extreme" has taken on a different meaning lately.

Some extreme measures have very little effect on R, and some make no sense at all.

Arguments can be made on a case-by-case basis for these. Objectively, though, some extreme measures do have a significant effect on R.

It isn't that they aren't indefinitely sustainable, it is that we are already seeing them being lifted without having sufficiently reduced the spread - and without having implemented other more effective measures.

Yes, we're seeing a lot of stupidity compounded in this situation, it's true.

Lockdowns should be used like a Pally bubble. It's not so much the solution to the problem as it is a way to periodically stave off the worst while you use the time you gain to work on implementing more effective methods to survive. The fact that there are more effective measures doesn't mean that you can necessarily do without the Pally bubble (in most cases), but neither does the Pally bubble mean that you can do without the more effective measures.

In some areas it was horrible - in others a bit bad; and it's hard to untangle how much that was people staying home with symptoms or for other causes.

The reason for the absence doesn't really make a difference to the point at hand, which was that fewer school transmissions were occurring because of mass absenteeism.

You assume that attendance numbers are widely collected and announced. Based on what?

I don't assume that they're widely collected at all; not on more than a school or school district level.

What I'm saying is that the earliest that the sporadic release of local information could be considered, as a group, to be the equivalent of a widespread accumulation of data, would be the mid-week following.

More simply, you couldn't get a halfway decent picture of wide absenteeism for at least half a week after the week in question. And even half a week is, I feel, very generous.

- - - Updated - - -

Big news if true from Italy:

https://www.radioradio.it/2020/05/co...&cn-reloaded=1

No, unfortunately this is all just a bunch of conspiracy theory garbage.

I mean, I'll highlight this one line for you:

We are talking about a virus, Covid, which is absolutely trivial. The death toll is all false. This virus is not capable of killing in any way.

That should give you an indication of the truthfulness of this information.

[Teleros]

That should give you an indication of the truthfulness of this information.

I mean there's no doubt some hyperbole (hey, it's Italy remember ), but if you bothered to do any research, you'd find for example that if you die AND have wuflu you're counted as a a wuflu death in the UK, which is self-evidently retarded. Add to that plenty of media panic, a death rate in Sweden that's far lower than the UK (244/million vs 384/million), etc etc etc... like I said, big if true.

[Coolthulhu]

Yes, and some claim that masks (when only a few wear them) are very effective in maintaining physical distance - as others stay clear of them.
Obviously if everyone wears masks that effect will likely disappear.

However, even if masks are effective in Asia where people are used to them doesn't imply that they will be immediately effective in other places, where people aren't used to them - unless there are big information campaigns on proper use.


That is always a problem, and here it's worse since some studies suggest that masks may increase the spread (moist cloth masks, and people touching them) so one cannot even say that it's doesn't do any harm.

Of course, double-blind study isn't really relevant in this case.

Well, where I currently reside and work, wearing masks is compulsory at all times when outside one's house, and thus far people stay well away from each other, so much so that it's a new habit to cross the street if someone's approaching from the other side. Advertisements in every TV channels have been almost entirely replaced by reminders about social distancing, proper hygiene and such, and you're even pestered on smartphones and social media (apparently, can't confirm the part about social media because I don't have any).
As to the masks being potentially harmful when most, I'll leave it to the experts to determine that, but I doubt it'd pose a threat to anyone staying 2-4 meters away from them anyway. I'd be more worried by some maskless guy coughing towards my general direction than by some guy with a moist mask at the same distance, but I'm no filtration expert, so who knows, maybe I'm wrong.
The double-blind thing was a typical scientist banter example, nothing more.

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...doesn't seem to matter; finding a covid-19 vaccine won’t be enough to end the pandemic

If SARS-CoV-2 establishes itself as a stubborn, endemic virus akin to influenza, medical experts say there almost certainly will not be enough vaccine for at least several years, even with the unprecedented effort to manufacture billions of doses. About 70 percent of the world’s population — or 5.6 billion people — will likely need to be inoculated to begin to establish herd immunity and slow its spread, scientists say.

The scenario public health experts fear most is a worldwide fight in which manufacturers sell only to the highest bidders, rich countries try to buy up the supplies, and nations where manufacturers are located hoard vaccines for their own citizens.

------------------

Interesting times.

[stevenho]

You had a bunch of hare-brained people here fighting masks for all tooth and nail with some retarded logic that if something does not give you 100% complete protection, then it's better to not use it at all.

Thankfully our government here is not that inept, so we have to wear masks mandatory by law when outside or get fined. Certainly feels good to only have 258 dead and 58 ventilated country-wide.

IDK man, your numbers seem pretty bad to me.
15x more deaths per 1M pop than India and 25x more than Palestine...

[Forogil]

Even when I literally did the math for you on the actual figures given in the statement, you still claim that it's "assumed".

If a number isn't given in the text it must be assumed, or do you know which number they had in mind?
And how do you explain that your assumption directly contradicts parts of the numbers given in the text?

Semantics. When people say "asymptomatic", what they almost always really mean is "infected, but not confirmed via test". I'm just going with the flow.

Some do, others use it correctly. The difference matters as it indicates that the problem is still lack of testing - and that people don't react to the symptoms.

And yet, as I pointed out, if you actually used the math the lack of which you so wantonly bemoaned, then you can solve for their estimated ratio.

You can also do it for the number they give for NYC which gives a ratio of 6-9, which directly contradicts their results.
You know the study that you actually believed was reliable, in NYC where you don't think that excess deaths were due to hospitals being overwhelmed.

The simple explanation is that they didn't think it through. You have not provided any real counter-argument, so I don't see that it's meaningful to continue this.

[PhaelixWW]

I mean there's no doubt some hyperbole (hey, it's Italy remember ), but if you bothered to do any research, you'd find for example that if you die AND have wuflu you're counted as a a wuflu death in the UK, which is self-evidently retarded. Add to that plenty of media panic, a death rate in Sweden that's far lower than the UK (244/million vs 384/million), etc etc etc... like I said, big if true.

I mean, the fact you call it "wuflu" makes it hard to take you seriously.

But also, the UK has about ~50-55k excess death right now, despite having an "official" tally of "only" 32k COVID-19 deaths. Implications that the COVID-19 numbers are over-exaggerated are downright hilarious.

[Forogil]

Arguments can be made on a case-by-case basis for these. Objectively, though, some extreme measures do have a significant effect on R.

And school closures (whether viewed as extreme or not) is not one of the measures having a significant effect on R.
That's one of the results from Imperial College - and there has previously been similar studies.

Lockdowns should be used like a Pally bubble. It's not so much the solution to the problem as it is a way to periodically stave off the worst while you use the time you gain to work on implementing more effective methods to survive. The fact that there are more effective measures doesn't mean that you can necessarily do without the Pally bubble (in most cases), but neither does the Pally bubble mean that you can do without the more effective measures.

If used in that way - and then it indicates that the country was caught off guard.

The reason for the absence doesn't really make a difference to the point at hand, which was that fewer school transmissions were occurring because of mass absenteeism.

If people are home with symptoms it's reasonable to expect them to get well, and thus it's a short-lived problem.