Coronavirus prep

lynn_glenmont · March 2020

AnnPT77 wrote: »

bmeadows380 wrote: »

AnnPT77 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.

Nony_Mouse · March 2020

sdavis484 wrote: »

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-isolation

Nony_Mouse · March 2020

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-home

lynn_glenmont · March 2020

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!").

lynn_glenmont · March 2020

bmeadows380 wrote: »

AnnPT77 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.

lemurcat2 · March 2020

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

AnnPT77 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.

lemurcat2 · March 2020

bmeadows380 wrote: »

AnnPT77 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).

Gisel2015 · March 2020

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/

AnnPT77 · March 2020

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.

kimny72 · March 2020

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.

hipari · March 2020

AnnPT77 wrote: »

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.

PAV8888 · March 2020

Nice, not

https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-risk-of-reinfection-2020-2

kimny72 · March 2020

AnnPT77 wrote: »

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.

I'm pulling for number 1

We were recently sold to a larger company, and I ended up with a lot more responsibility with the typical "there's no extra money for you now, but we're aware you're currently underpaid". Now that they've been kind of forced to let me try working from home for a couple of weeks (though I will have to stop in to the office a coue if times at least) I intend to suggest that a great way to reward me without a raise would be to allow me to work from home one or two days a week.

ETA: I'm not VPNing into the network, but most of my work is done by logging into different web based programs. I'm not sure if that makes it less of a security risk or not. That's why I can't avoid the office at all, I will need to get on an on-site computer for a few things.

ReenieHJ · March 2020

I ran into my brother in the grocery store today. He said his church has closed down all gathering and services, etc., and that's never happened before. He also heard there are 2 cases right across the river from us, in NH. only about 15 miles away. And you know where there's 2 confirmed cases.......I was just there this past week. Ugh, ya can't win. Time to become a complete hermit I guess.

pinuplove · March 2020

As a non-touchy person, I can dig this.

Lawmakers advised to give 'Star Trek' greeting to avoid contact as Hill prepares for coronavirus
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/10/politics/coronavirus-congress-precautions-greeting/

Diatonic12 · March 2020

sdavis484 wrote: »

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?

It's about personal integrity. There will be those who don't exhibit any symptoms who will go out and about exposing others. Those on the front line, celebrities, health care workers, even the virus screeners and their symptoms may or may not show up later. It's all a multi-cr@p shoot, especially without testing.

PAV8888 · March 2020

PSA regarding the https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html John Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Centre interactive map to which I posted a link the other day.

The previous link IS directly to the John Hopkins map as is the one above.

They ARE legit and do not contain malware. The map will display immediately in your browser without any prompts asking you to download, save, or install anything.

Similarly the WHO map I am linking below (Both the John Hopkins and WHO map use the GIS services of a Canadian company, Esri.com): https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/685d0ace521648f8a5beeeee1b9125cd

There does exist a malware-as-a-service "offering" making the rounds at the US$200 to $800 price point, and it HAS been deployed with a near identical map.

The malware downloads an app either from an email link OR when you visit an infected, or a specifically crafted website (remember the "great deal on AirPods" websites that were registered and launched a week before Black Friday? A friend's daughter almost "bought" three!) The downloaded app will display a similar looking map as a distraction while installing the actual malware that, at a minimum, will steal login names and passwords.

Don't click until you see where you're heading. Don't say yes and accept prompts without thinking and by default just because you're eager! Even if a link appears to be from someone you know, there is no guarantee their account was not hacked, or that they were not duped in the first place!

paperpudding · March 2020

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.

Yes I think this describes the situation in Australia - and people here are not used to stockpiling for shut in events (snow blizzards and such as described upthread) so aren't thinking through how to do it properly.

Add to that some fear about supply disruption: TP must be made in China because lots of things are and what if we can't get things from China any more - this started when most (known) cases were still only in China.
and what if we are locked in isolation and cant get any more.

However most Australian TP is made right here in Australia so entirely false premise and isolation doesnt mean no supplies because you can still get items delivered and left at your front door so false premise there too.

but then of course it snowballs - people over buy because other people are over buying and they might miss out....

In Australia the TP shortage has not been a supply issue - it has been entirely a shortage because of over buying at the point of sale end..

Which seems to be settling down now - partly because people who already bought 200 rolls surely arent buying any more and partly because stores are applying a one packet per customer limit.

lightenup2016 · March 2020

A few things as this situation develops so quickly—

With the apparent “reinfections” happening in China and Japan, I’m curious if they are any less sick than before, or possibly more sick? The articles I’ve read haven’t said.

Also, there’s a new article on CNN indicating that people are indeed likely spreading COVID-19 before they’re symptomatic. A previous study indicating such, had been subsequently contradicted, so its been difficult to know for sure. They’re now saying that people have high viral load 2.5 days prior to showing symptoms. I do wonder, how do they spread it? Random sneezes, couples kissing, germy hands from saliva?

Our state of NC has closed all public schools, similar to other states I’ve read about. Our kids go to a (not public) hybrid school, so they’re at school 2 days per week and home 3 days. Our school has not closed so far, with the head of it basically saying it’s all overblown and kids are not at much risk. We are welcome to keep our kids at home if we wish, and we’re already set up to do schoolwork at home, so now we just have to decide whether or not to send them. I feel like keeping them home is the socially appropriate thing to do.

I went to a few different stores in the past couple of days, and found it interesting that one store was very low on produce, but the others were well-stocked. Two stores were totally out of paper products, but the one that was limiting paper and cleaning products to one per customer, actually had some in stock.

I felt a bit guilty for being able to stock up pretty well for our family of 5, so we looked up the most needed items at a local food pantry, and shopped for those things, delivering them this afternoon. I’d love to help out neighbors as well, but not sure how to organize that. Maybe Nextdoor...

mph323 · March 2020

Chinese billionaire Jack Ma is donating a million face masks and 500,000 coronavirus test kits to the US. I'm grateful for the support and hope that our government can work with people like him to tap into international sources for desperately needed medical supplies.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/tech/jack-ma-face-masks-us-donation/index.html

This is really out there and sounds like a bonkers conspiracy theory, but can anyone shoot down my thought that testing is being throttled not just for lack of resources but because the fewer people who get tested, the lower the number of confirmed cases and the better the numbers look politically?

It's dark and rainy here, and I've been sitting by myself all day recovering from trying to find tomato sauce for dinner and finding the apocalypse playing out at Safeway. My thoughts are dark.

Coronavirus prep

Replies

Categories