Terri spoke with Dan Diamond, "a reporter for Politico who investigates health care policy and politics, including the Trump administration's coronavirus response". I was impressed. DD seems to really know his stuff. He explained things clearly, and without a lot of fuss. For that alone, it was a relief to listen to him.
My daughter (she’s 33, half my age) has issued strict orders that I’m not to go grocery shopping because I’m “at risk.” I have no underlying health conditions and my immune system is fine, thank you (I have over two months of sick leave accumulated because I never get sick). There is nothing I would love more than to have my bosses say “all non-essential personnel are to stay home”—I have an emergency kit that is well stocked with books I haven’t got around to reading.... But my daughter has been trying to direct her parents’ life since she could talk, since it’s been obvious that we were unfit to do it....
My daughter (she’s 33, half my age) has issued strict orders that I’m not to go grocery shopping because I’m “at risk.”
If your 33 year old daughter is half your age, that makes you 66, which is itself a risk factor. COVID-19 loves older folks. Or hates them, depending on your perspective.
And it turns out that having your health policy determined by racists is a bad idea.
Brooke Geiger McDonald
This is the scene at O’Hare airport. The traveler who took the photo said it’s a 6-hour wait for bags then on to customs for 2-4 more of waiting in shoulder-to-shoulder crowds. Police are handing out water and disinfectant wipes.
O'Hare Intl. Airport
Thank you for yr patience. Customs processing is taking longer than usual inside the Federal Inspection Services (FIS) facility bc of enhanced #COVID19 screening for passengers coming from Europe. We’ve strongly encouraged our federal partners to increase staffing to meet demand.
Jeremy FLATTEN THE CURVE Konyndyk
Other airports too. Good God. You could hardly invent a better scenario for superspreading events.
Any cases of COVID in these crowds will have a far higher chance of spreading to others in these lines than if they were just allowed in unchecked.
Jason Whitely
Passengers stuck in long lines for immigration at @DFWAirport tell us there are no offers of hand sanitizer, gloves, or masks from U.S. Customs / Immigration. Travelers say they’ve had no screenings of temp yet and no one following #coronavirus protocols.
There's more if you click through to the thread. It's almost as if the 'close the borders' faction of the U.S. government was pursuing some other agenda than stopping COVID-19.
Therefore, it would be prudent to prevent infection in the first place. More research is urgently needed on this front.”
Well, obviously. That was why there was a contain phase - that is what it was - it didn’t work, or perhaps more accurately, it didn’t work well enough.
My daughter (she’s 33, half my age) has issued strict orders that I’m not to go grocery shopping because I’m “at risk.”
If your 33 year old daughter is half your age, that makes you 66, which is itself a risk factor. COVID-19 loves older folks. Or hates them, depending on your perspective.
And it turns out that having your health policy determined by racists is a bad idea.
Brooke Geiger McDonald
This is the scene at O’Hare airport. The traveler who took the photo said it’s a 6-hour wait for bags then on to customs for 2-4 more of waiting in shoulder-to-shoulder crowds. Police are handing out water and disinfectant wipes.
O'Hare Intl. Airport
Thank you for yr patience. Customs processing is taking longer than usual inside the Federal Inspection Services (FIS) facility bc of enhanced #COVID19 screening for passengers coming from Europe. We’ve strongly encouraged our federal partners to increase staffing to meet demand.
Jeremy FLATTEN THE CURVE Konyndyk
Other airports too. Good God. You could hardly invent a better scenario for superspreading events.
Any cases of COVID in these crowds will have a far higher chance of spreading to others in these lines than if they were just allowed in unchecked.
Jason Whitely
Passengers stuck in long lines for immigration at @DFWAirport tell us there are no offers of hand sanitizer, gloves, or masks from U.S. Customs / Immigration. Travelers say they’ve had no screenings of temp yet and no one following #coronavirus protocols.
There's more if you click through to the thread. It's almost as if the 'close the borders' faction of the U.S. government was pursuing some other agenda than stopping COVID-19.
This starts to make more sense of why we didn’t screen in the airports, for returning travellers from Italy. Maybe this is the kind of unintended consequence the government were trying to avoid.
This article shows a balanced range of voices from experts, some of whom question the UK strategy. It also includes the voices of others who argue that the early imposition of draconian measures would not have the intended effect, and may not have provided a long-term resolution in territories where they have been applied. It’s worth spending a few minutes reading it.
My ‘favourite’ quotation from the article is one for which there is ample empirical evidence:
A clear warning is provided by global health expert Dr Michael Head, of Southampton University [...] “People already can’t be trusted to buy toilet roll properly, so how about long-term compliance when significant levels of freedom are removed and there’s a need to stay indoors for long periods of time? The evidence, as we have it right now, suggests it will decline.”
Still absorbing the implications of the over 70s policy, if it pans out. For example, we have an allotment a mile away, we have a house a 100 miles away. So we're supposed to just give them up? Also of course, food shopping, etc.
Still absorbing the implications of the over 70s policy, if it pans out. For example, we have an allotment a mile away, we have a house a 100 miles away. So we're supposed to just give them up? Also of course, food shopping, etc.
Our local council office is collecting names of those willing and able to do food runs and such for those ordered to isolate themselves.
I’m not yet clear if it will be elderly only, or - uk category - everybody who would normally be eligible for a free flu jab. (That being broadly the category of, known-to-be-vulnerable-to-respiratory-gubbins.)
Still absorbing the implications of the over 70s policy, if it pans out. For example, we have an allotment a mile away, we have a house a 100 miles away. So we're supposed to just give them up? Also of course, food shopping, etc.
Our local council office is collecting names of those willing and able to do food runs and such for those ordered to isolate themselves.
I’m not yet clear if it will be elderly only, or - uk category - everybody who would normally be eligible for a free flu jab. (That being broadly the category of, known-to-be-vulnerable-to-respiratory-gubbins.)
So who is making all those decisions you have listed?
Yes, this is the $64000 question ... lost a few hours sleep over it ... then gave up ... and had bad dreams
Reminds one of Tony Benn:
1. What power have you got?
2. Where did you get it from?
3. In whose interests do you exercise it?
4. To whom are you accountable?
5. How can we get rid of you?
Quarantining the over 70s, rather than the over 80s sounds like a recipe for social collapse. In our village the recently-retired, keeping busy people are the mainstay of the food bank, the voluntary drivers, the community council, the church etc etc. Many / most of them are providing part-time child care for grandchildren and dog-walking for working neighbours.
About half of those living in my street are over 70; the ones with the shiny, washed-weekly cars, the well-tended gardens, and the ones I'm most likely to see carrying a rolled up exercise mat, or gym bag, heading home from Zumba, or bowls, or aqua-aerobics.
In terms of incentives, the one advantage of a pandemic - if leaders *understand* it is a pandemic - there is absolutely no political advantage to mismanaging it. They might get it wrong, but they will at least try to act effectively.
Still absorbing the implications of the over 70s policy, if it pans out. For example, we have an allotment a mile away, we have a house a 100 miles away. So we're supposed to just give them up? Also of course, food shopping, etc.
Our local council office is collecting names of those willing and able to do food runs and such for those ordered to isolate themselves.
Tesco have been very good on this with their home delivery service (I am sure the other supermarkets have as well but Tesco is the one I know because I use them regularly and thus get their emails).
- Essentially they are very happy to deliver to people who are isolating themselves but simply ask to be told so they can leave the shopping at the front door. It's a very sensible system.
I think food and essential shopping will work out fine.
This article shows a balanced range of voices from experts, some of whom question the UK strategy. It also includes the voices of others who argue that the early imposition of draconian measures would not have the intended effect, and may not have provided a long-term resolution in territories where they have been applied. It’s worth spending a few minutes reading it.
My ‘favourite’ quotation from the article is one for which there is ample empirical evidence:
A clear warning is provided by global health expert Dr Michael Head, of Southampton University [...] “People already can’t be trusted to buy toilet roll properly, so how about long-term compliance when significant levels of freedom are removed and there’s a need to stay indoors for long periods of time? The evidence, as we have it right now, suggests it will decline.”
I had a very interesting conversation with my son's Godmother last week. She's a lecturer in history and thus has a good understanding of human behaviour on the macro level over centuries or even millennia... She argued that whilst she wouldn't claim to know the virology side, she did understand how human beings behave and was very much of the view that people would not comply well with aggressive infection control measures if they were introduced too early.
I suspect she's entirely right. There really is a complex balance to be struck here.
AFZ
P.S. Said Godmother is a long-term lurker on the ship and will probably read this and be pleasantly shocked that I said something nice about her... she shouldn't be but there you go. She also thinks I am extremely left-wing, so what can you do?
Quarantining the over 70s, rather than the over 80s sounds like a recipe for social collapse. In our village the recently-retired, keeping busy people are the mainstay of the food bank, the voluntary drivers, the community council, the church etc etc. Many / most of them are providing part-time child care for grandchildren and dog-walking for working neighbours.
About half of those living in my street are over 70; the ones with the shiny, washed-weekly cars, the well-tended gardens, and the ones I'm most likely to see carrying a rolled up exercise mat, or gym bag, heading home from Zumba, or bowls, or aqua-aerobics.
Whilst we will not totally self- isolate, we will avoid crowded places, but still shop locally. I am healthy enough, but my husband has several( well- controlled) health conditions, so, out of concern for him, I think we have decided that I should curtail my voluntary work, as it involves travelling on buses to a busy city. Our clients are not known for their attention to hygiene, and we meet with them at close quarters. However if all my over-70 colleagues do the same, our advice service will grind to a halt and be telephone only.
Multiply this across all over-70 volunteers, organised or individual, and the country will grind to a halt. It will anyway, won’t it, as workers get ill and can no longer staff essential services.
Still absorbing the implications of the over 70s policy, if it pans out. For example, we have an allotment a mile away, we have a house a 100 miles away. So we're supposed to just give them up? Also of course, food shopping, etc.
Our local council office is collecting names of those willing and able to do food runs and such for those ordered to isolate themselves.
Tesco have been very good on this with their home delivery service (I am sure the other supermarkets have as well but Tesco is the one I know because I use them regularly and thus get their emails).
- Essentially they are very happy to deliver to people who are isolating themselves but simply ask to be told so they can leave the shopping at the front door. It's a very sensible system.
I think food and essential shopping will work out fine.
Are there plans in place to change ordering for delivery for those without access to the internet? I fully expect my 80 something mother to walk to the store once or twice a week to get her groceries (she may be persuaded to use the local Coop which is closer than the Sainsbury's she usually uses). The alternative is either go without (she usually has a decent amount in reserve), wait for one of us to visit to do her shopping for her (would that be OK with the proposed isolation measures?) or rely on neighbours who she no longer knows well. Is she going to have to phone me, for me to register with Sainsbury's online to put in an order to be delivered to her home?
There are a lot of community groups starting to self organise, I think it’s quite likely there’ll be offers to take telephone shopping lists then collect and deliver to doorstep.
Therefore, it would be prudent to prevent infection in the first place. More research is urgently needed on this front.”
Well, obviously. That was why there was a contain phase - that is what it was - it didn’t work, or perhaps more accurately, it didn’t work well enough.
That was a quote, evidently they felt it merited a mention so presumably they didn’t think it was obvious to those to whom they were writing.
Quarantining the over 70s, rather than the over 80s sounds like a recipe for social collapse. In our village the recently-retired, keeping busy people are the mainstay of the food bank, the voluntary drivers, the community council, the church etc etc. Many / most of them are providing part-time child care for grandchildren and dog-walking for working neighbours.
About half of those living in my street are over 70; the ones with the shiny, washed-weekly cars, the well-tended gardens, and the ones I'm most likely to see carrying a rolled up exercise mat, or gym bag, heading home from Zumba, or bowls, or aqua-aerobics.
The death rate for over 70s is 8%. That’s if there are enough medical facilities to treat people, and doctors aren’t forced to make terrible decisions about who is most likely to survive.
If nothing was done to control the infection and isolate the vulnerable, assuming 80% of the population are infected (the CMO’s worst-case number) and an 8% mortality rate, around 350,000 70-79 year olds would be expected to die. Of those 80 and over (15% mortality rate), the number would be around 390,000.
The overall numbers of dead in each age group are, therefore, similar. But of course, if people aren’t isolated and numbers of cases get anywhere near these, the NHS will be overwhelmed and many more will die - there will be no treatment available.
Even in my (younger but not young) age group, which is not going to be cocooned, the worst case would be around 90,000 dead.
So, yes: civil society and normal community practices are going to shut down, and over 70s need to be isolated. This is going to be like war.
Still absorbing the implications of the over 70s policy, if it pans out. For example, we have an allotment a mile away, we have a house a 100 miles away. So we're supposed to just give them up? Also of course, food shopping, etc.
Our local council office is collecting names of those willing and able to do food runs and such for those ordered to isolate themselves.
Tesco have been very good on this with their home delivery service (I am sure the other supermarkets have as well but Tesco is the one I know because I use them regularly and thus get their emails).
- Essentially they are very happy to deliver to people who are isolating themselves but simply ask to be told so they can leave the shopping at the front door. It's a very sensible system.
I think food and essential shopping will work out fine.
Are there plans in place to change ordering for delivery for those without access to the internet? I fully expect my 80 something mother to walk to the store once or twice a week to get her groceries (she may be persuaded to use the local Coop which is closer than the Sainsbury's she usually uses). The alternative is either go without (she usually has a decent amount in reserve), wait for one of us to visit to do her shopping for her (would that be OK with the proposed isolation measures?) or rely on neighbours who she no longer knows well. Is she going to have to phone me, for me to register with Sainsbury's online to put in an order to be delivered to her home?
That part I don't know; it's a good point. However, it is possible to have a delivery to any address you like with the supermarkets and thus it would be very easy for you to order for her.
Making sure that's the case for everyone who needs it is a different matter. And that's something we can all do. I don't know of anyone who needs my help at present but if needed I can order for anyone in the country and would happily do so.
The caveat is that delivery slots are in very high demand.
You might want to check whether or not the grocery store will allow sending groceries to another address, if you're sending from your own account. I think maybe some don't allow that--under normal circumstances, anyway. If so, you might be able to set up an acct. for the recipient (or use their existing one), have the password, and get in that way. Don't know if the name on a credit card would be an issue.
You might want to check whether or not the grocery store will allow sending groceries to another address, if you're sending from your own account. I think maybe some don't allow that--under normal circumstances, anyway. If so, you might be able to set up an acct. for the recipient (or use their existing one), have the password, and get in that way. Don't know if the name on a credit card would be an issue.
Just something to consider, FWIW. YMMV.
I've done it lots of times with Tesco, that's how I know it works. I also have received a Sainsbury's order to a youth weekend at a very odd location.
My friend just added me to a 'love your neighbour' group on Facebook for Melbourne where people can ask for help or offer help to those who need shopping done or whatever else, can give away extra supplies and food etc. I'm sure there are similar groups in other towns and cities. One lady was teaching older people to use social media and online ordering before they may have to self isolate.
I began self-isolation three days ago after a big grocery run. I went to Kroger at 6 AM. when they just opened and I was about the only one there, then I put all $170 worth through the self check which was tedious but I ultimately think that was safer than delivery. Who knows how safety conscious the delivery clerks are and how many people they come in contact with every day?
Home alone all day doesn't bother me, you guys are my social life, and the obsessive cleaning with bleach is my idea of a good time. So 73 year-old me should be fine... except for the 68 year old husband who volunteers everywhere and the 53 year-old son who is a cashier at Walmart serving a few hundred people and touching about 600 of their items every day. Heh. At least what they bring home to me will go no further.
Walmart reports are wild. Half the employees have chosen to self-isolate, as is their right, but that means a skeleton crew to handle the hoarding masses. Son was griped at all day yesterday for the closed registers and the lack of toilet paper (you know it's the cashiers who make the big decisions,) and actually screamed at by two people. One, a woman who wanted to SEE him use the hand sanitizer before he touched any of her stuff, and two, a man who ordered him to leave his register line to go outside and get him a propane tank. At least he's enjoying the steady stream of "information" he always gets from his customers. Did you know that toilet paper comes from Italy and will kill us all?
I keep thinking they'll all get their stock piles in order and simmer down but it's not happening very fast. He's dreading what will happen when our big population of local opioid addicts become out of control.
Interesting point about the Chinese method, which I suppose everyone will follow, even the UK, if you lockdown, until cases are minimal, what happens when you release the lock? Do infections start up again? Are there reinfections? Of course, there is the prospect of a vaccine.
In the UK, I'm not clear what is achieved by Matt Hancock saying 'yes, self-isolation for all 70+ people is part of our action plan, but we don't want to activate it yet'. I've got an important hospital appointment today for another issue, but after that we're pulling up the drawbridge.
If eventually, why not now? We've got arrangements in place to help us through an extended period of self-isolation and a few days more really doesn't make much difference.
Because sustaining it for as long as needed, upto 16 weeks, is going to be very hard for people - and involves other risks.
They want to isolate older people during the worst period of the outbreak - if they start too early and then people can’t tolerate it, they risk coming out of quarantine at a point when there are many many people infectious.
Also there needs to be a level of organisation around food and medicine delivery, people and organisations need time to prepare.
Yes, a few more days makes a difference to us. We need to get up to our house in Norfolk, alert the neighbour, organize things like prescriptions, blah blah. A lockdown tomorrow would mean we would need to break it.
I began self-isolation three days ago after a big grocery run. I went to Kroger at 6 AM. when they just opened and I was about the only one there, then I put all $170 worth through the self check which was tedious but I ultimately think that was safer than delivery. Who knows how safety conscious the delivery clerks are and how many people they come in contact with every day?
Surely that would apply to the people making deliveries to the shop as well?
Interesting point about the Chinese method, which I suppose everyone will follow, even the UK, if you lockdown, until cases are minimal, what happens when you release the lock? Do infections start up again? Are there reinfections? Of course, there is the prospect of a vaccine.
As a prosperous, technologically advanced liberal democracy South Korea (massive free testing and treatment) might be a better model to follow. They've been about as successful as China (severe lockdown) in flattening their COVID-19 curve. Most other countries seem to be adopting a hybrid of these methods (massive testing followed by locking down infection clusters) with success rates varying depending on implementation.
My daughter (she’s 33, half my age) has issued strict orders that I’m not to go grocery shopping because I’m “at risk.” I have no underlying health conditions and my immune system is fine, thank you ....... But my daughter has been trying to direct her parents’ life since she could talk, since it’s been obvious that we were unfit to do it....
And that’s what is meant about people not complying. Everybody who doesn’t comply with restrictions will believe they have a good reason.
Although you did quote mine my post. Unfair. You left out, "if there was a lockdown tomorrow".
Yes I did understand that - but if you have a cough tomorrow will you self-isolate even if you have stuff to do ?
It’s not so much you I am trying to challenge, but rather the idea that it’s realistic that we can suddenly put in very onerous restrictions and easily have them followed.
Re S Korea - currently they electronically tracking thousands of their citizens, to do that we’d first need the technology, and we’d need to change our current data laws. Not do I think a population that is struggling to share toilet paper, is going to be patient enough to have there temperature taken anytime they go anywhere.
And that’s what is meant about people not complying. Everybody who doesn’t comply with restrictions will believe they have a good reason.
Although you did quote mine my post. Unfair. You left out, "if there was a lockdown tomorrow".
Yes I did understand that - but if you have a cough tomorrow will you self-isolate even if you have stuff to do ?
It’s not so much you I am trying to challenge, but rather the idea that it’s realistic that we can suddenly put in very onerous restrictions and easily have them followed.
Re S Korea - currently they electronically tracking thousands of their citizens, to do that we’d first need the technology, and we’d need to change our current data laws. Not do I think a population that is struggling to share toilet paper, is going to be patient enough to have there temperature taken anytime they go anywhere.
You understand that, but you were dishonest about my post. Do you understand that?
Also notes labour support a science led approach but would like to see the advice the government is basing its decisions published - which seems a reasonable response to me.
I understand this sentiment, but I'm not sure it's reasonable.
A friend of mine is a retired manager of our city's major teaching hospital. He was in charge at the time of the bird flu. In his new role as interfaith delegate for the Catholic diocese, he is very frustrated not to have all the information at his fingertips now that he did then, but appreciates that it is simply no longer his role to have it.
The fact is that even if lots of us here probably have the academic tools and intellect to pore over such advice, we don't have the same overview or the same political and social considerations to weigh as those in charge (for better for worse).
The problem is, in absence of good science, people will fill up their heads with rumours and lies and Fox News. You're not going to stop them drawing conclusions by withholding the good stuff; you'll only guarantee they draw bad conclusions. @alienfromzog
I deny that this is a low-mortality disease. Article.
Stopping all trade in wildlife would be a start.
Food security for everyone in the world would be a start.
Understanding that we're all one human family would be a start.
Interesting point about the Chinese method, which I suppose everyone will follow, even the UK, if you lockdown, until cases are minimal, what happens when you release the lock? Do infections start up again? Are there reinfections? Of course, there is the prospect of a vaccine.
As a prosperous, technologically advanced liberal democracy South Korea (massive free testing and treatment) might be a better model to follow. They've been about as successful as China (severe lockdown) in flattening their COVID-19 curve. Most other countries seem to be adopting a hybrid of these methods (massive testing followed by locking down infection clusters) with success rates varying depending on implementation.
But isn't the UK rationale that although S. Korea and China appear to be doing well at present, their strategy will ultimately fail ? That eventually they will have to come out of lockdown and then they will get a spike just as high as ever, because an insufficient number of people have immunity? Whereas the UK is hoping that by the time lockdown is released, a sufficient proportion of the population will have had it that there isn't a subsequent spike?
And that’s what is meant about people not complying. Everybody who doesn’t comply with restrictions will believe they have a good reason.
Although you did quote mine my post. Unfair. You left out, "if there was a lockdown tomorrow".
Yes I did understand that - but if you have a cough tomorrow will you self-isolate even if you have stuff to do ?
It’s not so much you I am trying to challenge, but rather the idea that it’s realistic that we can suddenly put in very onerous restrictions and easily have them followed.
Re S Korea - currently they electronically tracking thousands of their citizens, to do that we’d first need the technology, and we’d need to change our current data laws. Not do I think a population that is struggling to share toilet paper, is going to be patient enough to have there temperature taken anytime they go anywhere.
You understand that, but you were dishonest about my post. Do you understand that?
Your post is on the thread - I can't be 'dishonest' about it, its there for everyone to see. I was highlighting a point within it.
I deny that this is a low-mortality disease. Article.
That probably depends on how you define "low mortality", which must surely be a relative measure. The deaths per case statistic in your linked article shows this is age dependent (as is the case for most diseases), covid-19 appears to come in at an average of about 3.5%. Usual seasonal 'flu, and most 'flu pandemics, are much lower than that at about 0.1%; the Spanish 'flu was of a similar measure of mortality (about 3%); but these are still low mortality compared to SARS (11%), typhoid (10-20%), smallpox (30%), HIV or ebola (80-90%). Of course, where a vaccine or inexpensive treatment is available these rates fall considerably (and, as in the case of smallpox, can lead to effective eradication).
It's not just wildlife that's of concern, domesticated livestock would also be a potential source of a new virus. 'Flu seems to be associated with birds and pigs - so, start with improving conditions for chickens, turkeys, pigs etc, ban battery farming, giving livestock space to move and range freely would make massive cuts in disease rates and chances of new disease strains evolving and spreading. There wouldn't be any need to chlorinate meat products either.
There's a unique practice in parts of Asia including China. "Warm meat". Animals both domestic and wild are crowded into markets and killed in front of you or you take home and kill. Far more exposure of multiple species body liquids.
Plus consider pigs. Fed on rotting vegetation. Bats come by and eat at night, pooping on it. Pigs eat it. Pigs then live at market with batshit virus.
Then people have started eating the bats themselves because culturally it's considered cool to eat exotic things killed in front of you. Cooked while still warm.
So yes, western industrial farming is an issue, but none of these interesting viruses come from them. Ban on live meat markets and ban on import and export of wild animals. Africa's animals are being shipped live to China. Which deepens the blood shit pee virus stew.
@mousethief, I take your point. I do not say 'low mortality' to minimise anything. What I am getting at is the dynamics of disease spread.
Until the more recent outbreaks Ebola had an average mortality of 80-90%. That's part of the reason that outbreaks burned themselves out.
The 3% mortality is a helluva lot of deaths potentially. (Or whichever figure is the ultimate correct one). It is less deadly than SARS but will end up killing a lot more (it already has overtaken SARS) because it is more infectious.
My point was about disease spread. An illness that can cause only mild symptoms or none at all in active, mobile people will spread through an entire population. If it made everyone ill so they didn't get out of bed, it would not spread nearly as fast.
Also the comparison with seasonal Flu whilst valid and important is not the only one. Experts in infectious diseases always predicted higher mortality from Pandemic Flu.
If people get ill and have a high chance of dying, that's (obviously) awful for them but dead people stop moving around and sneezing. Equally a disease that spreads so easily but is never fatal would be less concerning. Covid-19 seems to be the worst of both worlds; most people won't die and will infect others but a lot will die too.
AFZ
P.S. Mortality rates for comparison:
Ebola upto 90%, 50-60% more recently
Malburg Fever (similar to Ebola) 24%-88%
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome 41%
Some strains of Influenza A have much higher mortality rates as well (upto 60%). The reason the overall death toll has been low is because they seem to be primarily animal diseases which spread to humans but show very little human to human transmission. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(avian-and-other-zoonotic)
I stand by the phrase 'low mortality' but as I said, I don't say that to minimise anything
Comments
"Trump Caught Google Off Guard With a Bogus Coronavirus Site Announcement: Google's not making a nationwide coronavirus testing website. And the company had no idea the president would say it was." (Wired)
"Reporter: White House Knew Of Coronavirus' 'Major Threat,' But Response Fell Short" (NPR)."
(Both audio and transcript on that page.)
Terri spoke with Dan Diamond, "a reporter for Politico who investigates health care policy and politics, including the Trump administration's coronavirus response". I was impressed. DD seems to really know his stuff. He explained things clearly, and without a lot of fuss. For that alone, it was a relief to listen to him.
Limits on liquids on airplanes
Interest on loans
Who to arrest and hold in jail
Help with rent, utility bills
Etc.
Can we dump the conservatives and austerity and profiteering after this?
If your 33 year old daughter is half your age, that makes you 66, which is itself a risk factor. COVID-19 loves older folks. Or hates them, depending on your perspective.
And it turns out that having your health policy determined by racists is a bad idea.
There's more if you click through to the thread. It's almost as if the 'close the borders' faction of the U.S. government was pursuing some other agenda than stopping COVID-19.
There are lots of conspiracy theories already about COVID-19, including China and the US blaming each other.
Well, obviously. That was why there was a contain phase - that is what it was - it didn’t work, or perhaps more accurately, it didn’t work well enough.
This starts to make more sense of why we didn’t screen in the airports, for returning travellers from Italy. Maybe this is the kind of unintended consequence the government were trying to avoid.
My ‘favourite’ quotation from the article is one for which there is ample empirical evidence:
Our local council office is collecting names of those willing and able to do food runs and such for those ordered to isolate themselves.
My wife is under 70, so she could be very busy.
I've heard "pre-existing condition" too.
Likewise, how many genuinely think of themselves as ‘elderly’.
https://tinyurl.com/sdod2th
Yes, this is the $64000 question ... lost a few hours sleep over it ... then gave up ... and had bad dreams
Reminds one of Tony Benn:
1. What power have you got?
2. Where did you get it from?
3. In whose interests do you exercise it?
4. To whom are you accountable?
5. How can we get rid of you?
About half of those living in my street are over 70; the ones with the shiny, washed-weekly cars, the well-tended gardens, and the ones I'm most likely to see carrying a rolled up exercise mat, or gym bag, heading home from Zumba, or bowls, or aqua-aerobics.
Tesco have been very good on this with their home delivery service (I am sure the other supermarkets have as well but Tesco is the one I know because I use them regularly and thus get their emails).
- Essentially they are very happy to deliver to people who are isolating themselves but simply ask to be told so they can leave the shopping at the front door. It's a very sensible system.
I think food and essential shopping will work out fine.
I had a very interesting conversation with my son's Godmother last week. She's a lecturer in history and thus has a good understanding of human behaviour on the macro level over centuries or even millennia... She argued that whilst she wouldn't claim to know the virology side, she did understand how human beings behave and was very much of the view that people would not comply well with aggressive infection control measures if they were introduced too early.
I suspect she's entirely right. There really is a complex balance to be struck here.
AFZ
P.S. Said Godmother is a long-term lurker on the ship and will probably read this and be pleasantly shocked that I said something nice about her... she shouldn't be but there you go. She also thinks I am extremely left-wing, so what can you do?
Whilst we will not totally self- isolate, we will avoid crowded places, but still shop locally. I am healthy enough, but my husband has several( well- controlled) health conditions, so, out of concern for him, I think we have decided that I should curtail my voluntary work, as it involves travelling on buses to a busy city. Our clients are not known for their attention to hygiene, and we meet with them at close quarters. However if all my over-70 colleagues do the same, our advice service will grind to a halt and be telephone only.
Multiply this across all over-70 volunteers, organised or individual, and the country will grind to a halt. It will anyway, won’t it, as workers get ill and can no longer staff essential services.
Possibly local shops will take phone orders.
That was a quote, evidently they felt it merited a mention so presumably they didn’t think it was obvious to those to whom they were writing.
The death rate for over 70s is 8%. That’s if there are enough medical facilities to treat people, and doctors aren’t forced to make terrible decisions about who is most likely to survive.
If nothing was done to control the infection and isolate the vulnerable, assuming 80% of the population are infected (the CMO’s worst-case number) and an 8% mortality rate, around 350,000 70-79 year olds would be expected to die. Of those 80 and over (15% mortality rate), the number would be around 390,000.
The overall numbers of dead in each age group are, therefore, similar. But of course, if people aren’t isolated and numbers of cases get anywhere near these, the NHS will be overwhelmed and many more will die - there will be no treatment available.
Even in my (younger but not young) age group, which is not going to be cocooned, the worst case would be around 90,000 dead.
So, yes: civil society and normal community practices are going to shut down, and over 70s need to be isolated. This is going to be like war.
That part I don't know; it's a good point. However, it is possible to have a delivery to any address you like with the supermarkets and thus it would be very easy for you to order for her.
Making sure that's the case for everyone who needs it is a different matter. And that's something we can all do. I don't know of anyone who needs my help at present but if needed I can order for anyone in the country and would happily do so.
The caveat is that delivery slots are in very high demand.
AFZ
Just something to consider, FWIW. YMMV.
Not all Shipmates are tech savvy.
🤔
I've done it lots of times with Tesco, that's how I know it works. I also have received a Sainsbury's order to a youth weekend at a very odd location.
Home alone all day doesn't bother me, you guys are my social life, and the obsessive cleaning with bleach is my idea of a good time. So 73 year-old me should be fine... except for the 68 year old husband who volunteers everywhere and the 53 year-old son who is a cashier at Walmart serving a few hundred people and touching about 600 of their items every day. Heh. At least what they bring home to me will go no further.
Walmart reports are wild. Half the employees have chosen to self-isolate, as is their right, but that means a skeleton crew to handle the hoarding masses. Son was griped at all day yesterday for the closed registers and the lack of toilet paper (you know it's the cashiers who make the big decisions,) and actually screamed at by two people. One, a woman who wanted to SEE him use the hand sanitizer before he touched any of her stuff, and two, a man who ordered him to leave his register line to go outside and get him a propane tank. At least he's enjoying the steady stream of "information" he always gets from his customers. Did you know that toilet paper comes from Italy and will kill us all?
I keep thinking they'll all get their stock piles in order and simmer down but it's not happening very fast. He's dreading what will happen when our big population of local opioid addicts become out of control.
If eventually, why not now? We've got arrangements in place to help us through an extended period of self-isolation and a few days more really doesn't make much difference.
They want to isolate older people during the worst period of the outbreak - if they start too early and then people can’t tolerate it, they risk coming out of quarantine at a point when there are many many people infectious.
Also there needs to be a level of organisation around food and medicine delivery, people and organisations need time to prepare.
Surely that would apply to the people making deliveries to the shop as well?
And that’s what is meant about people not complying. Everybody who doesn’t comply with restrictions will believe they have a good reason.
As a prosperous, technologically advanced liberal democracy South Korea (massive free testing and treatment) might be a better model to follow. They've been about as successful as China (severe lockdown) in flattening their COVID-19 curve. Most other countries seem to be adopting a hybrid of these methods (massive testing followed by locking down infection clusters) with success rates varying depending on implementation.
For a shorthand version of this, simply Google "Patient 31".
Although you did quote mine my post. Unfair. You left out, "if there was a lockdown tomorrow".
Disinheritance is the traditional answer here.
Yes I did understand that - but if you have a cough tomorrow will you self-isolate even if you have stuff to do ?
It’s not so much you I am trying to challenge, but rather the idea that it’s realistic that we can suddenly put in very onerous restrictions and easily have them followed.
Re S Korea - currently they electronically tracking thousands of their citizens, to do that we’d first need the technology, and we’d need to change our current data laws. Not do I think a population that is struggling to share toilet paper, is going to be patient enough to have there temperature taken anytime they go anywhere.
You understand that, but you were dishonest about my post. Do you understand that?
The problem is, in absence of good science, people will fill up their heads with rumours and lies and Fox News. You're not going to stop them drawing conclusions by withholding the good stuff; you'll only guarantee they draw bad conclusions.
@alienfromzog
I deny that this is a low-mortality disease. Article.
No, it didn't.
Bravo. This.
But isn't the UK rationale that although S. Korea and China appear to be doing well at present, their strategy will ultimately fail ? That eventually they will have to come out of lockdown and then they will get a spike just as high as ever, because an insufficient number of people have immunity? Whereas the UK is hoping that by the time lockdown is released, a sufficient proportion of the population will have had it that there isn't a subsequent spike?
Your post is on the thread - I can't be 'dishonest' about it, its there for everyone to see. I was highlighting a point within it.
There's a unique practice in parts of Asia including China. "Warm meat". Animals both domestic and wild are crowded into markets and killed in front of you or you take home and kill. Far more exposure of multiple species body liquids.
Plus consider pigs. Fed on rotting vegetation. Bats come by and eat at night, pooping on it. Pigs eat it. Pigs then live at market with batshit virus.
Then people have started eating the bats themselves because culturally it's considered cool to eat exotic things killed in front of you. Cooked while still warm.
So yes, western industrial farming is an issue, but none of these interesting viruses come from them. Ban on live meat markets and ban on import and export of wild animals. Africa's animals are being shipped live to China. Which deepens the blood shit pee virus stew.
Until the more recent outbreaks Ebola had an average mortality of 80-90%. That's part of the reason that outbreaks burned themselves out.
The 3% mortality is a helluva lot of deaths potentially. (Or whichever figure is the ultimate correct one). It is less deadly than SARS but will end up killing a lot more (it already has overtaken SARS) because it is more infectious.
My point was about disease spread. An illness that can cause only mild symptoms or none at all in active, mobile people will spread through an entire population. If it made everyone ill so they didn't get out of bed, it would not spread nearly as fast.
Also the comparison with seasonal Flu whilst valid and important is not the only one. Experts in infectious diseases always predicted higher mortality from Pandemic Flu.
If people get ill and have a high chance of dying, that's (obviously) awful for them but dead people stop moving around and sneezing. Equally a disease that spreads so easily but is never fatal would be less concerning. Covid-19 seems to be the worst of both worlds; most people won't die and will infect others but a lot will die too.
AFZ
P.S. Mortality rates for comparison:
Ebola upto 90%, 50-60% more recently
Malburg Fever (similar to Ebola) 24%-88%
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome 41%
Some strains of Influenza A have much higher mortality rates as well (upto 60%). The reason the overall death toll has been low is because they seem to be primarily animal diseases which spread to humans but show very little human to human transmission.
https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(avian-and-other-zoonotic)
I stand by the phrase 'low mortality' but as I said, I don't say that to minimise anything
Yuck. And yuck again...