COVID-19 Discussion

Whatever else you wanna rant about.
User avatar
e_parade
Junior
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:15 pm
Location: Boston

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by e_parade » Tue Jun 23, 2020 7:37 am

harbo wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 9:40 pm
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covi ... RI~TTO~USA

The struggle continues. We are s.l.o.w.l.y making headway as this interactive graphic shows us making slow progress with our new cases doubling about every seven days. Only Brazil, Russia, India and Mexico seem to be in similar or worse shape among the larger counties around the world.
We were turning a corner, led mostly by the Northeast (especially NY and NJ, but for sure also MA) getting the case counts down. Unfortunately far too many states currently have their case numbers going up, and we're actually starting to see as many cases as we were before but with the epicenters being in the South, Southwest, and California. California and Texas both had over 5000 new cases yesterday and they're going to head down different paths:

Newsom announced he wants mandatory masks in California.
Abbott said he needs another month of data before he can make a decision, despite admitting things aren't going well.


It's hard to track the country as whole because of how different the various areas are doing and handling it all. I'm hoping we don't see more terrible numbers on the death side...but those numbers tend to run behind cases by 2-3 weeks. And AZ (for instance) is approaching 90% ICU capacity after being in the 70s 2 weeks ago.

7 day moving average is climbing quickly again.
Image

User avatar
Quann
Senior
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 11:17 pm
Location: Start Line, MA

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by Quann » Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:36 am

Have you guys looked at the CDC's death number demographic? Just .1% of overall COVID deaths are under 25 years old and it goes up to a measly .8% under 35 years old. Can someone explain to me why all schools and colleges can't resume in the fall? The numbers don't support the argument. There are other viruses and illnesses that are far more dangerous to younger people than this virus. Hysteria, that has been media driven from the start has given way to plain statistics and probability.

McKinney
Senior
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:12 pm

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by McKinney » Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:54 am

Quann wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:36 am
Have you guys looked at the CDC's death number demographic? Just .1% of overall COVID deaths are under 25 years old and it goes up to a measly .8% under 35 years old. Can someone explain to me why all schools and colleges can't resume in the fall? The numbers don't support the argument. There are other viruses and illnesses that are far more dangerous to younger people than this virus. Hysteria, that has been media driven from the start has given way to plain statistics and probability.
Because teachers and parents could get it from the kids spreading it around?
Class of 2019 - @StatsMass

harbo
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2145
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:22 pm

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by harbo » Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:12 pm

McKinney wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:54 am
Quann wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:36 am
Have you guys looked at the CDC's death number demographic? Just .1% of overall COVID deaths are under 25 years old and it goes up to a measly .8% under 35 years old. Can someone explain to me why all schools and colleges can't resume in the fall? The numbers don't support the argument. There are other viruses and illnesses that are far more dangerous to younger people than this virus. Hysteria, that has been media driven from the start has given way to plain statistics and probability.
Because teachers and parents could get it from the kids spreading it around?
A significantly high percentage of grammar and high school support personnel including bus drivers, custodians, cafeteria workers, medical personnel, security personnel are in the higher age groups (often retired people not ready mentally, physically or economically to stay home for good) and are in that vulnerable population that doesn't need to be in potentially daily contact with the disease. Most school systems struggle to find replacements as it is now, nevermind if significant numbers did quit/die. There are also large numbers of grandparents watching the kids before and after school who don't need to be exposed. Never mind that these people would often unknowingly spread the disease further. Dr. Fauci keeps trying to pound this concept into bunches of thick skulls.

Having said that, colleges could possibly reopen some more as most students would not be in daily contact with the most vulnerable populations and there are better options for on-line learning than elementary/high schools. Still plenty of opportunities to spread the disease, but there are some insulating aspects to colleges to open up a bit more.

User avatar
e_parade
Junior
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:15 pm
Location: Boston

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by e_parade » Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:05 am

Also because death is not the only bad outcome from COVID-19. People live but have month long (some aren't even done yet) recoveries where they're unable to do much of anything simply because they're unable to breathe like they used to (also because their muscles have atrophied quite a bit).

It's not a situation where if you're super unlucky you'll die but otherwise you're perfectly fine. There's a world of bad things in the middle.


Also there are about 20 million college students in the US out there each year. 0.1% of 20 million is 20,000. You think that's an acceptable number of potentially dead 18-22 year olds? And that's before we even get to literally everyone else who works at a university/college. This also doesn't address all the people who might not even be able to attend classes because they're sick for so long or because they're recovering for so long after being cleared. This is also only looking at colleges, there are a shit ton more at the levels below.


Also were you saying that it's 0.1% of all deaths so far have been in that age range? Or were you saying 0.1% of people in that age range who get sick end up dying? They're very different things.

User avatar
UMass02
Senior
Posts: 1226
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:14 am

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by UMass02 » Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:25 pm

UMass’ COVID-19 plan

https://www.umass.edu/coronavirus/sites ... Plan_1.pdf

- Mostly online classes
- Students may live in the dorms with restrictions
- Spectators at athletic events TBD

User avatar
e_parade
Junior
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:15 pm
Location: Boston

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by e_parade » Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:20 pm

This is somewhat related: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 150310.htm

Essentially the data shows that when a new pro sports franchise is brought to the city, flu deaths increase by anywhere from 4-24% initially...and then stay that way.
It isn't one or two people dying. This is closer to 30 or 40 additional flu deaths over the course of flu season. When you blow it up to a virus that's more fatal like COVID-19, we could be talking about hundreds of additional deaths because of these games.

Floyd
Hall of Fame
Posts: 6833
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 8:50 am
Location: Not where I should be

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by Floyd » Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:56 pm

Good points by harbo and e_parade. And since this is such an unknown situation, we most likely haven't begun to even see the possible long term effects to the younger population.
The E sho, best show in town

harbo
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2145
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:22 pm

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by harbo » Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:07 pm

In fairness to my argument above about kids spreading the virus, I'll submit this one study for your perusal. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 100934.htm

Still need good social distancing and lower local community transmission (and a good use of contact tracing). And there still remains the possibility of the adults working at school bringing the virus to school and passing it on amongst themselves, especially to the more vulnerable age groups working there. But there is a ray of hope for a lessened impact overall.

User avatar
e_parade
Junior
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:15 pm
Location: Boston

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by e_parade » Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:30 am

I'd like to know more about that study, specifically the age groups is uses. It might completely agree with the South Korean Study, or it might show different results depending on how they classify the group.


For reference, the South Korean study shows that children under the age of 10 have a much lower likelihood to spread it than other age groups, but that children between 10 and 19 are just as likely as adults. So that would be the difference between elementary ages and middle/high school ages. It does, however, say that it's still a non-0 chance for children under the age of 10 to spread it.

NYT article on it: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/heal ... hools.html
Link to the CDC information on the study: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article
A large new study from South Korea offers an answer: Children younger than 10 transmit to others much less often than adults do, but the risk is not zero. And those between the ages of 10 and 19 can spread the virus at least as well as adults do.
South Korea also has done a lot better job with contract tracing than most other regions. Not to say that everything about their study is perfect, but it does have a fairly reliable and large data set.

User avatar
e_parade
Junior
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:15 pm
Location: Boston

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by e_parade » Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:50 pm

Well, there goes that theory about "kids don't get COVID or spread it"

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/ ... r_dAHjinCk
A total of 597 Georgia residents attended camp A. Median camper age was 12 years (range = 6–19 years), and 53% (182 of 346) were female. The median age of staff members and trainees was 17 years (range = 14–59 years), and 59% (148 of 251) were female. Test results were available for 344 (58%) attendees; among these, 260 (76%) were positive. The overall attack rate was 44% (260 of 597), 51% among those aged 6–10 years, 44% among those aged 11–17 years, and 33% among those aged 18–21 years (Table). Attack rates increased with increasing length of time spent at the camp, with staff members having the highest attack rate (56%). During June 21–27, occupancy of the 31 cabins averaged 15 persons per cabin (range = 1–26); median cabin attack rate was 50% (range = 22%–70%) among 28 cabins that had one or more cases. Among 136 cases with available symptom data, 36 (26%) patients reported no symptoms; among 100 (74%) who reported symptoms, those most commonly reported were subjective or documented fever (65%), headache (61%), and sore throat (46%).
Just over half the 6-10 years olds who were tested have it, and just under half of 11-17 year olds.

This entire thing happened over the course of 10 days. 10 days. And all campers and staff were required to get tested within 12 days of starting to go there, and all staff members were required to wear masks (but not the campers themselves).

Berkman
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5562
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:38 pm
Location: Mooresville, NC
Contact:

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by Berkman » Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:06 pm

My wife and I are staying in and when we go out we wear our masks. No need to go out and get the virus.

User avatar
econalum
Senior
Posts: 1880
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 10:31 am
Location: Acton, MA

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by econalum » Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:56 pm

Frankly, any residential camp for kids would be highly suspect, not worth the trip/investment. The virus appears to be super spreadable.

We cannot expect children to adhere every moment to the varying strictures, especially as it is summer, masks are hot, and unlike the varying summer rash cuprits, such as poison ivy, we cannot give a visual clues/training. Just a few precautions.

The good news is that it is incredibly rare that youth are seriously compromised or killed by covid. The bad news is that recent evidence suggests that youth take on large doses of the virus, and can become 'super spreaders', even if no symptoms.

I am totally teaching OL in the Fall, despite efforts by my U to make us teach on campus, for reasons seeming to be more about residential room and board than anything else.

Be well and safe, wear the mask in any confined space. Econ
Feeling entitled is JUST a feeling...

User avatar
Quann
Senior
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 11:17 pm
Location: Start Line, MA

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by Quann » Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:04 am

Antibody positive tests and people with Covid like symptoms that aren'tactually tested both get counted as positive Covid-19 results. Don't believe the media hype that is being reported. Hospitals filling up are a result of backlogs of cancelled surgeries from the last four months not because Covid is running wild in this country. I wish the media was held to a higher standard but they sensationalize everything. The fact is that this is still not very dangerous to kids under 19 and I believe the average COVID-19 death age is still 79-80 years old in the US.

Floyd
Hall of Fame
Posts: 6833
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 8:50 am
Location: Not where I should be

Re: COVID-19 Discussion

Post by Floyd » Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:16 pm

Quann, really? You think this is overhyped? You know anyone working in the healthcare field who would agree with that?
Its spreading without a doubt. What the long term effects might be on younger kids is unknown. I think the safe thing to do is be smart and protect yourself when out in public and try to help slow the spread until some sort of vaccine is available. Nobody likes it, but its the smart and responsible thing to do
The E sho, best show in town

Post Reply