Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
For Catholics, the Archbishop of Los Angeles has dispensed with the obligation to go to mass the next 3 Sundays. I don't see anything about that on the archdiocese website, but my parish put out a notice. I'm still trying to decide if I will go. I've had what I am about 99% certain is the flu and I'm almost recovered, but I'm not sure I can make it through mass without coughing at least once and I don't want to cause a panic.
I mentioned this earlier, but the Archdiocese of Chicago canceled public mass. Churches that have the capacity are encouraged to broadcast something and people can go into a church for private prayer.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »amusedmonkey, you're in NZ?
Your border protection is probably the best in the world. I hope all goes well.
No, I'm in Jordan, but I'm feeling hopeful because both the government and the people are taking this seriously. I'm also glad I'm not seeing any examples of extreme toilet paper hoarding lol - I still don't understand why toilet paper specifically.
I wish I had a link, but there was a kind of convincing comment on BBC World Service last night from a guest in an expert-talk segment.
He advanced an idea (that I won't clearly present here becaus it was kinda nuanced and I was listening while doing other stuff
).
The idea was that it has something to do with hard-wired fears of disease, association of disgust with disease, association of excretory functions with disgust, plus association of hygiene/cleanliness with self-protection/disease-avoidance . . . all at a sub-rational level. Then, poof, in a pandemic, we all go racing out to buy TP.
Maybe?
That IS interesting. Although, I was an early TP buyer before the Great TP Panic of 2020, and what I recall thinking at the time was:
1. It's possible I may need to stay in the house for quite a while.
2. What are things the lack of which would make sheltering in place exceedingly unpleasant and force me to venture out to the store, even if it's the zombie apocalypse out there?
3. Lack of: TP, toothpaste, soap, laundry detergent, something to drink besides water, and cold cuts.
So I stocked up on TP, along with the rest of the list.
(Froze the cold cuts in 4 ounce servings - good for 2 ish months).4 -
As far as killing all its victims and taking itself out, it can still spread for several days (symptoms may appear as much as 14 days after exposure)
Eventually there's no one left to infect.
See, it's a circular argument because *some* people are going to die. Some are going to survive. That's the way natural selection works.
If the virus became too good at its mutation eventually everyone dies. Ta da, no more worries about global warming or retirement accounts. The planet gets to start over without humans.
Not a bad thing, perhaps.3 -
@lgfrie
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/484942-japan-confirms-first-case-of-person-reinfected
Sigh.
Thanks for all of the good tips. 0 -
If we don't have enough tests, we're undertesting, and don't know whether the incidence of XYZ virus in the population is higher or lower than the (number of positive tests) divided by (number of tests) . . . but because we're rationing tests to the most severe cases, we're mostly testing highly symptomatic people and getting a high percentage of positive tests, compared to the number of test performed. And, because we're testing the most severe cases as more testing kits become available, the jump in confirmed cases is extra-dramatic.
so once we get a test that is widely available and can be used on much more people, the death toll percentage will fall and eventually level out to a more accurate number which could well be less than the 4-6% estimated now. Right?Suppose a news report says "Confirmed cases in Town Z are up by 20%". What this means: If we had 20 confirmed cases, we now have 24 cases. We had 20, we added 20% of 20, which is 4, for a total of 24.
What "up by 20%" does not mean: If that initial 20 confirmed cases was 1% of Town Z's population of 2000, we don't suddenly have 1% + 20% or 21% of the population confirmed as having XYZ virus, i.e., it's not suddenly 420 cases. A 100% increase (starting from 20 cases) would mean that 40 people are confirmed to have XYZ virus, not that everyone now has it.
This I get - its the same way businesses pull in people on sales - 10% off! Until you realize its 10% off a $5 product, which means you're still paying $4.50......1 -
slimgirljo15 wrote: »I can't help but wonder about the single people with no family or close friends to check on them, in self isolation who get sick.. laying in bed progressively getting worse.. may die there with nobody to know
Sorry, sad thought I know
As a single person I actually feel a bit better off. Think about it is two people isolate together there is twice the chance of being infected to start and will infect other one.
I know i daily check in with my sister and her family so she would know but i am really on my own.
Also a friend pointed out all the romantic couples isolated together in December /January there is going to be a baby boom and 13 years later in 2034 we are going to see the rise of the Quaran-teens.13 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »If we don't have enough tests, we're undertesting, and don't know whether the incidence of XYZ virus in the population is higher or lower than the (number of positive tests) divided by (number of tests) . . . but because we're rationing tests to the most severe cases, we're mostly testing highly symptomatic people and getting a high percentage of positive tests, compared to the number of test performed. And, because we're testing the most severe cases as more testing kits become available, the jump in confirmed cases is extra-dramatic.
so once we get a test that is widely available and can be used on much more people, the death toll percentage will fall and eventually level out to a more accurate number which could well be less than the 4-6% estimated now. Right?
Yes.
0 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »If we don't have enough tests, we're undertesting, and don't know whether the incidence of XYZ virus in the population is higher or lower than the (number of positive tests) divided by (number of tests) . . . but because we're rationing tests to the most severe cases, we're mostly testing highly symptomatic people and getting a high percentage of positive tests, compared to the number of test performed. And, because we're testing the most severe cases as more testing kits become available, the jump in confirmed cases is extra-dramatic.
so once we get a test that is widely available and can be used on much more people, the death toll percentage will fall and eventually level out to a more accurate number which could well be less than the 4-6% estimated now. Right?
(snip)
Death toll (if you mean fatality rate for the disease) is (number of people who die of the disease)/(number of people who have the disease). Right now, we don't know how many people have the disease.
Theoretically, the fatality rate could go up or down, compared to what's being stated now, because the denominator (number of people who have the disease) is unknown, and the numerator (number of people who die) is going to depend to some extent on things like whether the hospitals/health care system can keep up or are overwhelmed. Fewer people will die if the health care system can keep up.
Trying to help the health care system keep up by making cases happen slower (same number of cases, but over a longer time period) - that "flattening the curve" thing - is what's being attempted now via social distancing measures.
Different countries/regions will have different fatality rates for the same disease, depending on a number of variables, but one is whether the health system can keep up.
One thing for sure, math-wise: Once all of this is over, and this virus reduced (as we hope) to a normal, treatable, potentially preventable disease), we will have enough data to realistically estimate fatality rates for areas with good statistical infrastructure. Until then, it's a moving target, though as time progresses, the estimates should improve as more data rolls in.
At least that's my view.6 -
My family traveled to Oklahoma this weekend to visit other family (military) that was in the states from South Korea temporarily. Once we got to Oklahoma we discovered that virtually the entire city was without water for most of our trip. I feel like the Coronavirus is out to get me.
I live in Oklahoma and haven't heard of any town being out of water. Where were you?!?!1 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »amusedmonkey, you're in NZ?
Your border protection is probably the best in the world. I hope all goes well.
No, I'm in Jordan, but I'm feeling hopeful because both the government and the people are taking this seriously. I'm also glad I'm not seeing any examples of extreme toilet paper hoarding lol - I still don't understand why toilet paper specifically.
I wish I had a link, but there was a kind of convincing comment on BBC World Service last night from a guest in an expert-talk segment.
He advanced an idea (that I won't clearly present here becaus it was kinda nuanced and I was listening while doing other stuff ).
The idea was that it has something to do with hard-wired fears of disease, association of disgust with disease, association of excretory functions with disgust, plus association of hygiene/cleanliness with self-protection/disease-avoidance . . . all at a sub-rational level. Then, poof, in a pandemic, we all go racing out to buy TP.
Maybe?
Kinda makes sense, although I can't really make that connection in my mind. I haven't felt the urge to buy toilet paper.
I was at the grocery shop today. Some shelves look a bit less stocked than usual, including toilet paper, but no empty shelves or long lines. Rice, sugar, flour, and beans seemed to have the most traffic. Bread bakeries are being hit the hardest by panicked people. Everyone wants to stock up on bread.
Clearly Jordanians are more sensible than the rest of the world!!
The TP thing is a sort of self fulfilling prophesy - some people start to buy in excess because who knows why the things Ann mentioned, it maybe gives a sense of control, etc, then fear of a shortage makes other people think they'd better stock up too, and thus actual shortage. Often when there is absolutely zero chance of actual shortage. Like, no one needs a trolley full of loo paper for two weeks, or even a month.
People who are worried about not being able to get yoghurt - make your own. It's ridiculously easy, you can use milk powder or shelf stable milk instead of fresh, and it is way, way cheaper.
I'm curious to see the effects of NZ's increased border control measures on the whole grocery shopping thing, whether people will feel reassured enough that we're not going to have what happened in Italy happen here, and ease up. Not that I've really seen any evidence of mass panic buying in my small town, other than loo paper having to be constantly restocked, but I think there's been more of it in Auckland, where all the cases are so far. People there went nuts as soon as the first case was announced.
I found the explanation Ann relayed somewhat convincing, but this is the theory I've gone with in the past on TP: There are some people who just don't buy TP until they're almost out. During an emergency (like an impending blizzard or hurricane, or the coronavirus spread), all the people who might have ordinarily bought TP over the next 7 to 10 days are buying it in a 24- to 48-hours window, and the ones who usually wait until they're almost out are maybe buying an extra pack, when they would ordinarily buy just one. Now, packages of toilet paper are pretty large. It doesn't take many extra purchases above normal for the shelves to start to look bare, because they can only fit so many large packages on the shelves at once. Then people who don't really need TP, but who don't like to wait until they're almost out before they buy the next package, see the depleted shelves and think they better buy some before it's all gone. Over time, the knowledge that TP disappears ahead of storms or possible medical quarantines starts to sink in, and people start buying the TP defensively "just in case" during impending potential emergencies.
*** **** ***
I'm in the mid-Atlantic part of the U.S., and last weekend when I went to the grocery story, almost everything was still well-stocked, except you couldn't find hand sanitizer, and if you were particular about which brand of toilet paper you want, you might have been out of luck.
I went yesterday evening, which is usually an uncrowded time in the store (it was slightly busier than it might ordinarily be, but not in any way crowded. It was just a few hours after the president announced the national emergency, and it was a very different situation as far as stocked shelves. Still no hand sanitizer. No hand soap. Lots of gaps on the shelves with household cleaning products. I think the only thing left in the "commercial bakery" aisle were two or three packages of hamburger rolls, but I picked up a loaf of rye at the deli counter with no problem (hmm, were other people staying away from the deli counter because they didn't want to buy food they saw a human being handling?), and there was plenty of bread in the in-store bakery section (I admit I passed on serve-yourself bagels and muffins because who knows what the hygiene practices are of the people who served themselves before you).
But I was actually surprised in a weirdly pleasant way by some of the other things that were in short supply or sold out entirely. In the produce section, no bananas, potatoes, onions, one lone head of cabbage, only a few carrots (loose organic ones). I guess some of that was St. Patrick's Day effect (not the bananas, of course). Other than the bananas, that's produce that keeps well for a fairly long time. Lots of bare spots in the meat section (I didn't examine closely as I'm having a meatless Lent). Rice and beans (including dried beans) pretty much cleared out. Lots of bare spots in the dairy milk section, but I still scored some of that extra-protein Fairlife. And absolutely no in-the-shell eggs (a few cartons of liquid eggs were left).
The up-side I saw to that was that I had expected people stocking up on food would be going for canned soup, mac and cheese mix, prepared frozen meals, etc. I was weirdly happy to see evidence that some people were preparing to actually cook food from scratch while they were stuck home.
I was just making my regular weekly grocery run. I've always been one to keep nonperishables well-stocked in case of blizzards, power loss in summer, a car accident that leaves me without transportation for a while, a broken limb that makes shopping challenging, a sudden health emergency by a relative who depends on me to do whatever he wants done while he's in the hospital, etc., so I haven't felt any pressure to buy more or different things than I normally would buy, and I was able to get most of what I would normally buy, or make easy adjustments to something different (I don't normally buy Fairlife). OK, yesterday I did buy a little more junky comfort food in expectation of curling up with a book or video more often in the coming weeks.
I had hoped to get eggs, as I'm eating more eggs during my meatless Lent, plus it's possible I might do a little extra baking while I'm hanging out at home more than usual. I still have about a dozen, and I have some dried eggs I could use for baking, but I may try dropping by a farm or orchard market to see if they have any.
Trying to look on the upside and take social distancing as an opportunity to get things done around the house, relax a little, phone people I don't talk to as much as I should, stop and talk to neighbors (from a distance) instead of just waving and hurrying to do the next thing I think I have to do, etc.
5 -
slimgirljo15 wrote: »I can't help but wonder about the single people with no family or close friends to check on them, in self isolation who get sick.. laying in bed progressively getting worse.. may die there with nobody to know
Sorry, sad thought I know
As a single person I actually feel a bit better off. Think about it is two people isolate together there is twice the chance of being infected to start and will infect other one.
I know i daily check in with my sister and her family so she would know but i am really on my own.
Also a friend pointed out all the romantic couples isolated together in December /January there is going to be a baby boom and 13 years later in 2034 we are going to see the rise of the Quaran-teens.
Yeah, I kinda meant those poor souls who have nobody. Those that live like hermits.. 😔
I think if 2 people are infected , hopefully they don't both take a turn for the worse at the same time, hopefully one would be well enough to call for help.
I should say that my thought was sparked by an old ladys death a few years ago who was found dead in her tub.. basically a hermit whom nobody checked on. I was thinking on how many are like this.
Lol ""Quaran-teens" 😁5 -
yikes - the CDC's map is very behind, apparently, because its still showing 4 states without any confirmed cases. The CDC's map hasn't been updated since 3/12. Also, the CDC's website is very behind on total cases, too.
But I went back and found the link that someone had posted to John Hopkins' map which was updated today at 4 pm, and Idaho is now showing 1 confirmed case and Alabama is showing 6 confirmed cases, so we're down to only 2 states with no confirmed cases: Alaska and West Virginia.
The CDC's website is still saying 1,629 cases with 41 dead in the US, while the John Hopkins map has 2,572 cases with 51 dead.
With Maryland's 28, Virginia's 31, Pennsylvania's 47, Ohio's 26, and Kentucky's 14, its gotta be just a matter of time until it finally gets here.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »Why is the UK government is taking this slow approach??
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51865915
I was having this discussion a couple days ago when we first went on lock-down here in Washington state.
First, government can't win on this no matter which way they go.
When it becomes money or life, of course it has to be life. UK has socialized medicine that already is struggling so there's another layer.
So that's what's mostly being decided with all the lock-downs in the U.S. Immediate life-saving is the most important thing. (?) Short term pain long term gain?
But my other side says, "Maybe it's best to let this play out as Nature intended."
I don't think that's [necessarily] smart, or maybe it is, but it did cross my mind. Sort of a get-it-over-with stance. Not try to control it...because it's going to likely surprise us in a lot of ways. Like someone said in an article I read, "If this virus becomes too successful it kills all its victims and takes itself out."
If we keep tamping it down it's an annoyance forever. It's a complicated dilemma. I am of the belief it will likely find its own level regardless of what we try to do.
Well, the people who get it early while there are still plenty of medical resources to go around are probably luckier than people who get it at the peak, especially if the curve isn't flattened, and have to hope there will be a respirator for them if they need it. But I don't think that's a good reason to be cavalier about hand-washing and social distancing, as by the time you have good odds of catching it just by being generally careless, the odds are that you'll be fairly close to the incidence peak.3 -
This is the NZ prime minister's full statement from yesterday, if anyone is interested:
Jacinda Ardern
11 hrs ·
Another long but important update on COVID-19.
You may have seen that today we announced a range of major steps to further protect the health of New Zealanders and reduce the threat of transmission of COVID-19.
Below is what I said at the announcement, but if you’re short on time, the top things to note are:
1. We have increased New Zealand’s border restrictions. This now means that anyone entering New Zealand from any country aside from the Pacific Islands (listed below) is required to self-isolate for 14 days on arrival. This decision will mean New Zealand will have some of the widest ranging and toughest border restrictions in the world.
2. We also announced a temporary ban on all cruise ships coming into New Zealand. This will be in place from midnight tonight until at least 30 June 2020.
3. New border restrictions apply to people, not products. We will be working to ensure we keep freight routes open for imports and exports - so there’s no need to rush out and stock up at the supermarket.
4. Protecting New Zealanders health is our number one focus and we’re taking strong actions to respond to the changing global situation, however, all New Zealanders have a role to play in stopping further spread of the virus. Stay home if you’re unwell and keep up simple things like washing your hands and sneezing or coughing into your elbow.
5. We are also encouraging New Zealanders to avoid all non-essential travel overseas. This helps reduce the risk of a New Zealander bringing COVID-19 back with them.
Now for the long version…here is what I said at the press conference today. As always, any questions, do post them below.
Full Statement at Press Conference re Covid-19
Good afternoon
The full Cabinet met this afternoon to make a range of significant decisions to further protect the health of New Zealanders and reduce the threat of transmission of COVID-19 in New Zealand.
First I want to provide some context to our decisions.
New Zealand has to date, relative to other counties, a small number of cases. We have successfully managed to contact trace for every one of those cases, and are in the process of doing so for our latest one. This has been a critical part of our response.
Secondly, our smaller number of cases has helped us to manage them in the right place, and with the right support. The majority of our cases have not required our hospital system to care for them.
The key continues to be leaving our hospital system for those who need it most.
All of this points to one strategy which has guided our decision making - spread the cases, and flatten the curve.
It is not realistic for New Zealand to have only a handful of cases. The international evidence proves that is not realistic, and so we must plan and prepare for more cases.
But, the scale of how many cases we get and how fast we get them is something we should do as much as we can to slow. That is how we ensure health services are there for those who need them most.
That’s why we must go hard, and go early, and do everything we can to protect New Zealanders health.
That is exactly why, to tackle this global pandemic, Cabinet made far reaching and unprecedented decisions today.
As of midnight Sunday every person entering New Zealand, including returning New Zealand citizens and residents, will be required to enter self-isolation for 14 days.
The Pacific Islands ( the Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Republic of Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu & Wallis and Futuna) are exempted from this measure, though anyone from these countries will be required to automatically self–isolate should they exhibit any COVID-19 symptoms upon arrival in New Zealand.
These restrictions will all be reviewed in 16 days time.
Alongside Israel, and a small number of Pacific Islands who have effectively closed their border, this decision will mean New Zealand will have the widest ranging and toughest border restrictions of any country in the world.
We are also encouraging New Zealanders to avoid all non-essential travel overseas. This help reduces the risk of a New Zealand bringing COVID-19 back with them.
We accept that for New Zealanders currently overseas this is a stressful time and we encourage any New Zealander needing consular assistance to contact the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In addition to restrictions on air travel we are also taking firm measures on cruise ships. As of midnight tonight we are issuing a directive to all cruise ships not to come to New Zealand until at least 30 June 2020, at which time the directive will be reviewed.
I want to be very clear - these measures are about people, not products. They do not apply to cargo ships or cargo planes or to marine or air crew, and we will be working to ensure we keep sea and air freight routes open for imports and exports.
In short, no one needs to conduct a run on their supermarket. It’s worth remembering that we’ve had travel restrictions on China for over a month, and those supply routes continue.
We are mindful that some items that come into New Zealand travel via passenger flights. That’s why support, where needed, will be provided to ensure that essential air freight like pharmaceuticals continue to be shipped into New Zealand.
We did not take these decisions lightly. We know these travel restrictions will place significant strain on the aviation industry, and we anticipate some routes will reduce or cease for a period of time.
As such the Government will work closely with the aviation sector to encourage and support airlines to remain active in New Zealand so that we can re-bound from the restrictions quickly and not have significant impacts on our tourism sector, exporters, and economy.
In addition to these measures the Finance Minister will also announce an economic response including the business continuity package on Tuesday.
We are also stepping up our actions at the border as a key departure route to the Pacific. New Zealand has a huge sense of responsibility to support our Pacific neighbours.
As such strict new border exit measures for people travelling to the Pacific will be put in place and include:
• No travel for people who have travelled outside of New Zealand in the past 14 days,
• No travel for close or casual contacts of a confirmed case.
• No travel for anyone who is symptomatic
• Health assessment including temperature checks.
Taken as a whole, the border measures we are taking today will mean significantly more people will enter self-isolation, and supporting and facilitating that to occur is critical.
We are already registering all travellers into New Zealand, and healthline is monitoring the self-isolation process.
Today we instructed officials to step up enforcement of self isolation through measures such as spot checks. It is worth mentioning though, to date more than 10,500 people are or have successfully self-isolated in New Zealand. People know that it’s in the best interest of their community and they’re pulling together to look after one another
After all, the combination of restricting the virus coming here and isolating it when it does are two of the most important steps we can take to avoid community outbreak.
Given self-isolation is so important, we want to make it as easy as possible.
As such the Government will be introducing a range of measures to assist with self-isolation. Expect more on this early next week.
We will also increase community support to those unable to support themselves in isolation.
In addition to these measures the Finance Minister will also announce a business continuity package next week, the Health Minister will announce a suite of additional health measures to scale up the responsiveness of our health system to the virus and a public information campaign will be launched.
Ultimately though, the best protection for the economy is containing the virus. A widespread outbreak will hurt our economy far more in the long run than short term measures to prevent a mass outbreak occurring.
These measures, while disruptive, are needed to make the space we need as a nation to prepare and manage the spread of COVID-19.
We all have obligations to limit the spread of the virus and basic health measures is are the heart of that.
However in order to limit the risk of community outbreak when people are in close proximity to each other we will also be announcing further guidelines on mass gatherings. For now, Pasifika and the 15 March Memorial have been cancelled. The guidance we will be developing more broadly on mass gatherings will be based on the following criteria:
- large numbers of people in close proximity
- Events where people are more likely to be in physical contact
- Events where participants have travelled from overseas
- And non ticketed events, where for instance there is no seat allocation making it difficult to contact trace
Again, advice and criteria on mass gatherings will be released next week. For those who need more immediate advice, they should contact their public health unit.
In conclusion, we have two choices as a nation. One is to let COVID-19 roll on, and brace.
The second is to go hard on measures to keep it out, and stamp it out - not because we can stop a global pandemic from reaching us, but because it is in our power to slow it down.
I make no apology for choosing the second path. New Zealanders public health comes first. If we have that, we can recover from the impacts on the economy, the impacts on tourism, and the impacts on our airline.
Finally, this is an unprecedented time. While we don’t have community transmission here, now is the time to prepare. And we can all play a role in that.
So here’s my request to New Zealanders
1) Wash your hands
2) If you don’t need to travel overseas, then don’t. Enjoy your own back yard for a time.
3) Wash your hands
4) If you’re sick, stay home.
5) If you sneeze, do it into your elbow
6) Wash your hands.
7) Stop handshakes, hugs, and hongi - I know this is counter to who we are as a nation, but the best thing we can do right now to show love and affection to one another, is to switch to the East Coast wave.
8)Please be mindful of the older citizens in your life. Check in on them, but if you’re sick, keep your distance
Finally, we are a tough resilient people. We have been here before. But our journey will depend on how we work together. We are taking every measure we need as a government, and we ask that you do to.
We all have a role to play. Look out for your neighbour, look out for your family. Look out for your friends.7 -
Death toll (if you mean fatality rate for the disease) is (number of people who die of the disease)/(number of people who have the disease). Right now, we don't know how many people have the disease.
One thing for sure, math-wise: Once all of this is over, and this virus reduced (as we hope) to a normal, treatable, potentially preventable disease), we will have enough data to realistically estimate fatality rates for areas with good statistical infrastructure. Until then, it's a moving target, though as time progresses, the estimates should improve as more data rolls in.
yep, that's what I was meaning when I say death toll.
So looking at my CDC versus John Hopkins as of 3/14 at 4:30 pm EST, on 3/12, the CDC was reporting 1,629 cases and 41 deaths, resulting in a 2.5% death rate. Today at 4 pm, John Hopkins was showing 2,572 cases and 51 deaths, bumping that rate down to 1.9% actual. Understanding that as time goes on, that % will fluctuate. This is US, btw.
0 -
How do we keep people that are quarantined home though? Is that possible? I don't think it is. What would stop an infected person from being out and sharing germs?0
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Why is the UK government is taking this slow approach??
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51865915
I was having this discussion a couple days ago when we first went on lock-down here in Washington state.
First, government can't win on this no matter which way they go.
When it becomes money or life, of course it has to be life. UK has socialized medicine that already is struggling so there's another layer.
So that's what's mostly being decided with all the lock-downs in the U.S. Immediate life-saving is the most important thing. (?) Short term pain long term gain?
But my other side says, "Maybe it's best to let this play out as Nature intended."
I don't think that's [necessarily] smart, or maybe it is, but it did cross my mind. Sort of a get-it-over-with stance. Not try to control it...because it's going to likely surprise us in a lot of ways. Like someone said in an article I read, "If this virus becomes too successful it kills all its victims and takes itself out."
If we keep tamping it down it's an annoyance forever. It's a complicated dilemma. I am of the belief it will likely find its own level regardless of what we try to do.
Well, the people who get it early while there are still plenty of medical resources to go around are probably luckier than people who get it at the peak, especially if the curve isn't flattened, and have to hope there will be a respirator for them if they need it. But I don't think that's a good reason to be cavalier about hand-washing and social distancing, as by the time you have good odds of catching it just by being generally careless, the odds are that you'll be fairly close to the incidence peak.
Exactly.
Some people will die regardless of when they catch it, too. It seems that there is possibly a genetic component to who reacts with that immune storm...I'm not smart enough to know the answers but I do know that there's likely no one who can stop the general trajectory.
It is surprising to me that SAR-Cov1 (the first one, "SARS") just became super virulent (in the range of 9% deaths) and then burned out in a year and there have been no recorded cases since. It didn't infect as many people, I think in the range of 9,000, maybe? - but I'm not sure if that's because of anything we did or didn't do. It's just interesting.1 -
slimgirljo15 wrote: »I can't help but wonder about the single people with no family or close friends to check on them, in self isolation who get sick.. laying in bed progressively getting worse.. may die there with nobody to know
Sorry, sad thought I know
Yes.
I belong to an international online group for "Elder Orphans": People over 55 living alone, with no spouse, partner, children, parents, siblings - at least not any close enough (geographically or emotionally) or able to be a support systems.
We have a number of issues that those with families don't (health care power of attorney, will and estate issues, even logistical stuff like making it to outpatient surgery if there's no one to drive us there and wait while the surgery happens, as many medical facilities now require; and much more).
I'm not whining at all, just describing; mostly, this is manageable. It's just non-standard.
In one of the local branches of my "Elder Orphan" group, a nurse/member is setting up pairs of people (who ask for this) to get each other's contact information, and commit to check in daily or on some other agreed basis, with instructions between the two of them about what to do if that contact can't be made.
This group includes people so isolated that they have few/no real-life relationships (sometimes because reasons ). But of course there are similar people without even online connections.
P.S. I have people in my real life, they're just not spouse, partner, etc., that count for belonging to this group.13 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »juliemouse83 wrote: »Our numbers in N.C. jumped from 17 the last time I checked last night to 23 this morning. Our county announced our first one yesterday afternoon. I’m having a time getting my head wrapped around how rapidly this seems to be accelerating, not just here, but all over.
I don't know whether this is reassuring (it shouldn't be, really), and I don't in any way mean to be saying "it's overblown" (it's not), but here in the US, the late roll-out of test kits, now being improved upon, is just statistically likely to give us very quick confirmed-case increases.
Sure, it's partly an effect of the disease contagion, but also an effect of the fact that increasing numbers of people who should be tested (and should've been tested before this) are finally starting to be tested now.
If you look at stories from some of the other countries with somewhat delayed testing, there's a similar effect. It settles out - still to a worrisome rate, but it becomes clear that the early days' reports had statistical distortions in them. We won't have a clear numerical picture, for a bit.
I was wondering about that, when they were giving death toll percentages; how does it affect that percentage when you start factoring in all the people who have a mild version that we don't even know about?
(snip)
Just talking arithmetic, not trying to increase/decrease the feelz, so let's pretend I'm talking about the XYZ virus (and oversimplifying somewhat):
If more people have the XYZ virus than are included in estimating the death rate, then the death rate will be overestimated, because death rate is (fatal cases) divided by (known cases).
In other words, if the bottom number in the division (denominator, which in this formula is known cases) is falsely low, the result (in this formula, death rate) will be falsely high.
Make sense?
If we don't have enough tests, we're undertesting, and don't know whether the incidence of XYZ virus in the population is higher or lower than the (number of positive tests) divided by (number of tests) . . . but because we're rationing tests to the most severe cases, we're mostly testing highly symptomatic people and getting a high percentage of positive tests, compared to the number of test performed. And, because we're testing the most severe cases as more testing kits become available, the jump in confirmed cases is extra-dramatic.
One other math comment, based on news reports I'm hearing. Most of you already know this, but I suspect some may not, based on RL friends' reactions:
Suppose a news report says "Confirmed cases in Town Z are up by 20%". What this means: If we had 20 confirmed cases, we now have 24 cases. We had 20, we added 20% of 20, which is 4, for a total of 24.
What "up by 20%" does not mean: If that initial 20 confirmed cases was 1% of Town Z's population of 2000, we don't suddenly have 1% + 20% or 21% of the population confirmed as having XYZ virus, i.e., it's not suddenly 420 cases. A 100% increase (starting from 20 cases) would mean that 40 people are confirmed to have XYZ virus, not that everyone now has it.
Apologies, if everyone here already knew that. I know y'all are better at math than some of my friends, but I don't know how much better.
:flowerforyou:
The problem in the U.S. is that the test-rationing so far has apparently also been keeping highly symptomatic people from being tested if they hadn't traveled to an area with known cases or had contact with a diagnosed person. This undercounts critical cases. I've read quite a few accounts of people with symptoms who had been tested to rule out the flu and other less common diseases but who couldn't get tested for the coronavirus because they didn't fit into the neat testing categories (e.g., they had passed through the immigration/customers area of an airport at the same time that a planeload of people coming from China were there; contact with persons who themselves were from areas with high rates of contagion; medical professionals who could very well have seen undiagnosed patients, etc.) The U.S. testing criteria so far seems to have been designed to avoid discovering any instances of what they're calling "community" transmission.
So far, I haven't heard whether they are testing people who die of undiagnosed respiratory diseases to finally find out whether they had coronavirus. This practice could be depressing the numerator in the division performed to calculate the death toll.
9 -
How do we keep people that are quarantined home though? Is that possible? I don't think it is. What would stop an infected person from being out and sharing germs?
Well, one would hope that any decent human being would abide by quarantine requirements, but of course there will be some that don't.
These are the (current) requirements for self-isolation in NZ (this is for anyone arriving into the country, or anyone who has had close contact with someone who has tested positive, I'm a bit unclear if the requirements are more stringent for those that have the virus): https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-novel-coronavirus-health-advice-general-public/covid-19-novel-coronavirus-self-isolation1 -
OKay this is the info for those who have tested positive but are not hospitalised: https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-novel-coronavirus-health-advice-general-public/caring-yourself-and-others-who-have-or-may-have-covid-19-home1
-
slimgirljo15 wrote: »I can't help but wonder about the single people with no family or close friends to check on them, in self isolation who get sick.. laying in bed progressively getting worse.. may die there with nobody to know
Sorry, sad thought I know
As one of those people, I'm OK with that thought (for myself, anyway). I would call for an ambulance if I started having difficulty breathing. I telecommute, and a telecommuting colleague I email scores of times every day who lives nearby has promised to come over if I stop responding and pull me out when the corpse-barrow rolls by. ("But I'm not dead yet!").
12 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »If we don't have enough tests, we're undertesting, and don't know whether the incidence of XYZ virus in the population is higher or lower than the (number of positive tests) divided by (number of tests) . . . but because we're rationing tests to the most severe cases, we're mostly testing highly symptomatic people and getting a high percentage of positive tests, compared to the number of test performed. And, because we're testing the most severe cases as more testing kits become available, the jump in confirmed cases is extra-dramatic.
so once we get a test that is widely available and can be used on much more people, the death toll percentage will fall and eventually level out to a more accurate number which could well be less than the 4-6% estimated now. Right?
But in terms of raw numbers of people actually dying, it doesn't matter whether its 6% of 100,000 or 1% of 600,000 people. It's still 6,000 people dead (numbers for illustrative purposes only).
Kind of how whether or not you're counting and logging all you calories accurately, the effect on the scale will be the same, because your body is still counting. The number of people who actually die doesn't depend on our getting the math right. The scale's reaction to our actual energy surplus or deficit doesn't depend on our getting the math right.
7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »amusedmonkey, you're in NZ?
Your border protection is probably the best in the world. I hope all goes well.
No, I'm in Jordan, but I'm feeling hopeful because both the government and the people are taking this seriously. I'm also glad I'm not seeing any examples of extreme toilet paper hoarding lol - I still don't understand why toilet paper specifically.
I wish I had a link, but there was a kind of convincing comment on BBC World Service last night from a guest in an expert-talk segment.
He advanced an idea (that I won't clearly present here becaus it was kinda nuanced and I was listening while doing other stuff ).
The idea was that it has something to do with hard-wired fears of disease, association of disgust with disease, association of excretory functions with disgust, plus association of hygiene/cleanliness with self-protection/disease-avoidance . . . all at a sub-rational level. Then, poof, in a pandemic, we all go racing out to buy TP.
Maybe?
Kinda makes sense, although I can't really make that connection in my mind. I haven't felt the urge to buy toilet paper.
I was at the grocery shop today. Some shelves look a bit less stocked than usual, including toilet paper, but no empty shelves or long lines. Rice, sugar, flour, and beans seemed to have the most traffic. Bread bakeries are being hit the hardest by panicked people. Everyone wants to stock up on bread.
Clearly Jordanians are more sensible than the rest of the world!!
The TP thing is a sort of self fulfilling prophesy - some people start to buy in excess because who knows why the things Ann mentioned, it maybe gives a sense of control, etc, then fear of a shortage makes other people think they'd better stock up too, and thus actual shortage. Often when there is absolutely zero chance of actual shortage. Like, no one needs a trolley full of loo paper for two weeks, or even a month.
People who are worried about not being able to get yoghurt - make your own. It's ridiculously easy, you can use milk powder or shelf stable milk instead of fresh, and it is way, way cheaper.
I'm curious to see the effects of NZ's increased border control measures on the whole grocery shopping thing, whether people will feel reassured enough that we're not going to have what happened in Italy happen here, and ease up. Not that I've really seen any evidence of mass panic buying in my small town, other than loo paper having to be constantly restocked, but I think there's been more of it in Auckland, where all the cases are so far. People there went nuts as soon as the first case was announced.
I found the explanation Ann relayed somewhat convincing, but this is the theory I've gone with in the past on TP: There are some people who just don't buy TP until they're almost out. During an emergency (like an impending blizzard or hurricane, or the coronavirus spread), all the people who might have ordinarily bought TP over the next 7 to 10 days are buying it in a 24- to 48-hours window, and the ones who usually wait until they're almost out are maybe buying an extra pack, when they would ordinarily buy just one. Now, packages of toilet paper are pretty large. It doesn't take many extra purchases above normal for the shelves to start to look bare, because they can only fit so many large packages on the shelves at once. Then people who don't really need TP, but who don't like to wait until they're almost out before they buy the next package, see the depleted shelves and think they better buy some before it's all gone. Over time, the knowledge that TP disappears ahead of storms or possible medical quarantines starts to sink in, and people start buying the TP defensively "just in case" during impending potential emergencies.
This is the most reasonable explanation I've heard, and as someone who too often waits until I'm low before buying it resonates with me.
My local paper said that stores were saying that they simply couldn't keep that much TP in stock given how bulky it is so could run out easily with increased buying but would restock soon -- there's no real shortage.5 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »If we don't have enough tests, we're undertesting, and don't know whether the incidence of XYZ virus in the population is higher or lower than the (number of positive tests) divided by (number of tests) . . . but because we're rationing tests to the most severe cases, we're mostly testing highly symptomatic people and getting a high percentage of positive tests, compared to the number of test performed. And, because we're testing the most severe cases as more testing kits become available, the jump in confirmed cases is extra-dramatic.
so once we get a test that is widely available and can be used on much more people, the death toll percentage will fall and eventually level out to a more accurate number which could well be less than the 4-6% estimated now. Right?
Yes, but the infection rate will be higher (and the threat of spread). The concern is in part that even lower infection rates will be devastating if some huge percentage of the population contracts it, and apparently a much higher percentage than the death rate need medical care (although we don't have a real clue about percentages now, IMO).3 -
it may be a little too graphic for some people
What does the coronavirus do to your body? Everything to know about the infection process
A visual guide of coronavirus infection, symptoms of COVID-19 and the effects of the virus inside the body, in graphics
Javier Zarracina, and Adrianna Rodriguez, USA TODAY
Updated 7 hours ago
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/03/13/what-coronavirus-does-body-covid-19-infection-process-symptoms/5009057002/2 -
Just to shift gears a bit: On this thread and other places, I'm seeing more about companies encouraging telecommuting, about companies' IT staffs quickly setting up or expanding the infrastructure for telecommuting**, and that sort of thing.
I'm musing about two things (not drawing conclusions):
1. Will this tip the trend in some fashion, and lead to relatively more of that on a permanent basis?
2. Will the security of this new, perhaps hastily-set-up infrastructure be adequate for the task? As someone whose pre-retirement job included a small bite of computer security responsibilities, I know this realm is still an arms race: The highly-automated nefarious actors developing new tools, the good guys running hard to get ahead of them. Haste and under-investment are historically sources of vulnerability. It worries me a little, frankly.
** I've heard rumors, but not fact-checked, that in the US the current administration had been discouraging telecommuting or remote work by federal employees, and that there had been some infrastructure disinvestment or even reduction, in this area; and that this is now moving in the other direction again, toward encouraging more federal employees in some areas to work from home.7 -
I think it's important to be clear that, in my understanding, the aim of social distancing is not to stop the spread, just slow it down. It's almost assured that everyone will eventually be exposed to covid-19. The hope is to limit the number of cases in the beginning, when the medical community doesn't know much about it and treatment might still be a guessing game.
You can flatten out the curve to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system, plus you can hopefully postpone many of the vulnerable from getting sick until best practices are proven and agreed upon, equipment is stockpiled, and perhaps even a vaccine becomes available. And depending on where you are in the world, an additional benefit might be allowing seasonal flu season to pass, freeing up resources to focus more on Coronavirus.
As my dad so elegantly put it on the phone yesterday, my mom decided to take the quick way down the stairs, so they had to go to the ER. The waiting room was relatively empty, everyone was constantly recoating themselves with sanitizer, and they rushed her through the process so they barely spent 45 mins there. And nothing was broken, thank goodness. But so far central VA is still seemingly not in crisis, while we all hide in our TP forts and wait to see how this is all going to pan out. 13 -
Just to shift gears a bit: On this thread and other places, I'm seeing more about companies encouraging telecommuting, about companies' IT staffs quickly setting up or expanding the infrastructure for telecommuting**, and that sort of thing.
I'm musing about two things (not drawing conclusions):
1. Will this tip the trend in some fashion, and lead to relatively more of that on a permanent basis?
2. Will the security of this new, perhaps hastily-set-up infrastructure be adequate for the task? As someone whose pre-retirement job included a small bite of computer security responsibilities, I know this realm is still an arms race: The highly-automated nefarious actors developing new tools, the good guys running hard to get ahead of them. Haste and under-investment are historically sources of vulnerability. It worries me a little, frankly.
** I've heard rumors, but not fact-checked, that in the US the current administration had been discouraging telecommuting or remote work by federal employees, and that there had been some infrastructure disinvestment or even reduction, in this area; and that this is now moving in the other direction again, toward encouraging more federal employees in some areas to work from home.
There’s definitely issues with hastily set-up infrastructure. My work does business with a big local insurance company (not in the US), and we have a consultant at their office full time. They went from ”no working from home allowed” to ”only working from home is allowed” in less than 12 hours after they confimed an infected person had been at the headquarters. The office went on lockdown, and nobody is apparently allowed in. This means that their remote connection can’t be reconfigured either, as the physical devices, cords etc are on lockdown. The capacity is of course not enough for everyone, so the IT development team (that our consultant belongs to) had their turn with the remote connection at 5AM-9AM so they could relinguish all capacity to customer service when it opened. Their system is failing in capacity but at least it’s safe because nobody can connect freely.
I’m just happy that our company has enabled, pioneered ad championed remote work for years - up to the point where I haven’t been in the same premises with one of my colleagues in almost 2 years. There’s enough corona stuff to worry about and deal with even without worrying about everybody learning to do remote work. I know that’s not the situation for most people and many jobs can’t be done remotely, but by us staying home and working efficiently from there we do our part for both those who do have to leave home and for the economy.
6 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions