Coronavirus in DFW - News & Discussion (Dallas, Corpus Christi: gardens, nurse)

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by Sunbather

Yes, the fact that it primarily exists in the larger droplet form is part of it. This is one reason face coverings do a great job on people who are already sick.

But the aerosol form (similar to the virus floating around on its own in terms of size) does exist and is significantly smaller.

However, the act of diffusion still allows the capture of these nanoparticles, even when they are technically smaller than the openings of the fabrics. This is particularly noticeable in multi-layered face coverings. And this is the important effect that many people do not realize: filtration like this is not binary.

Correct. Multi-layer filtering is not like a grating, it's more like a labyrinth. The smallest droplets float by random Brownian motion, which makes it extremely unlikely they will negotiate that labyrinth.

[Sunbather]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

Correct. Multi-layer filtering is not like a grating, it's more like a labyrinth. The smallest droplets float by random Brownian motion, which makes it extremely unlikely they will negotiate that labyrinth.

Bingo! Glad to see others on the same page.

[CDContribuitor]

A considerable large portion of covid-19 deaths have been attributed to lung failure.

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

The presumption there is that covid-19 always operates as a pulmonary disease, which is not the case. It presents itself in a variety of ways.

[CDContribuitor]

We were referring to the following - If the mortality rate for US had been same as Sweden (316 per million instead of 246 per million), the number of deaths would have been 103K at this point.

We have no way of knowing what exact number of deaths would have been for US, if there was no shutdown in place and if we would have followed the Sweden model to a 'T'. Sweden's approach was not a political decision. It was led by a team of epidemiologists in Sweden. So your statement that "Global data strongly indicate that shutdowns work" can only be proven to be true, if you had 2 parallel universe for US - 1 with the shutdown scenario that we went through till date and another without the shutdown scenario. The only logical comparison that you could do at this point is 2 countries with 2 different approaches i.e. US and Sweden. South Korea and Singapore did not have a shutdown either. By the way, every country in that list (with 5 countries above Sweden) had a shutdown. Belgium had enforced its shutdown since March 17 and it has had 757 deaths per million - more than double that of Sweden. The same is true for Italy, Spain and UK. All those countries have had exercised shutdowns.

And I do not know if you missed this story "Cuomo says it’s ‘shocking’ most new coronavirus hospitalizations are people who had been staying home". - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-g...ying-home.html

I am not trying to prove Katana or yourself wrong. I am just stating that there are many unknowns about this virus and claiming that state-wide shutdowns has been a good solution cannot be taken entirely at its face value. Again, time will tell.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Sweden is, no doubt, an exception. Global data strongly indicate that shutdowns work. Every expert epidemiologist thinks shutdowns work, and they all know about Sweden, too. I'm honestly not open to any argument that is a variation of "I know more about epidemiology than the experts." If you think the economic consequences are too great, we can have that debate. But arguing that the epidemiology itself is different than what a strong consensus of actual epidemiologists think is nonsense.

And FWIW, I don't think it's a 20k difference. I think we'd be looking at a 500k difference in fatalities. People can guess about why Sweden has been such an exception, but the bottom line is that we don't get to decide we're an exception. IMO, we've had the worst disease track of any major country when you factor in our lack of density and the large swaths of our country that have been lightly affected. It is irrational to think we'd be the singular exception (like Sweden) in the other direction if we didn't practice shutdowns.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by CDContribuitor

We were referring to the following - If the mortality rate for US had been same as Sweden (316 per million instead of 246 per million), the number of deaths would have been 103K at this point.

Yes, I understand that. My point was that you can't cherry pick an exception and think that is the path the US would have followed.

Originally Posted by CDContribuitor

We have no way of knowing what exact number of deaths would have been for US, if there was no shutdown in place and if we would have followed the Sweden model to a 'T'. Sweden's approach was not a political decision. It was led by a team of epidemiologists in Sweden. So your statement that "Global data strongly indicate that shutdowns work" can only be proven to be true, if you had 2 parallel universe for US - 1 with the shutdown scenario that we went through till date and another without the shutdown scenario. The only logical comparison that you could do at this point is 2 countries with 2 different approaches i.e. US and Sweden. South Korea and Singapore did not have a shutdown either. By the way, every country in that list (with 5 countries above Sweden) had a shutdown. Belgium had enforced its shutdown since March 17 and it has had 757 deaths per million - more than double that of Sweden. The same is true for Italy, Spain and UK. All those countries have had exercised shutdowns.

I disagree. We can see what effect shutdowns had on the curve in various countries. In virtually every case, shutdowns flattened the curve.

Again, you are arguing against a strong majority of experts here, and I simply don't care. If you want to debate whether the economic cost is worth it, fine. But I'm not interested in debating a technical question about epidemiology when the experts are pretty consistent in their views.

Respiratory viruses grow via human contact. Reduce human contact and you reduce transmission. It's as simple as that. There isn't an epidemiologist in the world who thinks more human contact wouldn't result in more transmission. Maybe the epidemiologists in Sweden thought that the Swedes could get away with it because they could still maintain social distancing without actual shutdowns. But in no way did they think that more human contact wouldn't result in more transmission.

Edit to add: The known point here is that less social contact reduces transmission. Whatever path the virus has taken in Sweden, it would have taken a less-aggressive path with less social distancing. Now, Sweden may have been able to maintain social distancing in spite of not doing shutdowns. For the US, we know what our path has looked like given the shutdowns. An increase in social contact would have made it worse. There's zero doubt about that. I also highly doubt that we could have maintained serious social distancing without doing shutdowns.

[PACman2521]

Great article on how infections have been spreading and how we should be thinking as activities increase.

"Ignoring the terrible outbreaks in nursing homes, we find that the biggest outbreaks are in prisons, religious ceremonies, and workplaces, such a meat packing facilities and call centers. Any environment that is enclosed, with poor air circulation and high density of people, spells trouble."

"Basically, as the work closures are loosened, and we start to venture out more, possibly even resuming in-office activities, you need to look at your environment and make judgments. How many people are here, how much airflow is there around me, and how long will I be in this environment."

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the...hem-avoid-them

[PACman2521]

Reading this piece from back in 2015 reminds me of what's going on now....

"To health authorities, the solution was simple. With so much at stake, science eclipses religion: Risky rituals must end." Maybe not for religious reasons but for whatever beliefs one has.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/n...unerals/#close

[BLDSoon]

Originally Posted by CDContribuitor

I do agree that every life is worth saving and it is our moral obligation. Question is 5 or 10 years down the line, if we evaluate the damage - financial and lives - that the shutdown may cause, will we conclude that saving 20k lives by exercising shutdown was worth it.

I cant tell if you're serious or you are saying some of these things for the sake of debate.

How much money did we spend on the war with Iraq? How many soldiers lost their lives there? How many Iraqis? All because about 3K people lost their lives at the World Trade Center. Some decided that number of lives was worth going to that huge money and human expense for. What's so different now besides an enemy we cant see?

I like how you assume you will be alive and in a position to be making that assessment 5 years from now. Its easier to assume that than the alternative isn't it? Its entirely possible that you could very well be one of the lives whose worth is being evaluated against the financial damage. If that's the case I wonder whether you'd still make that assessment.

There is no either or here. There is no economy without consumer and investor confidence. There will be none of the above with widespread death from any cause.

Sitting here trying to calculate whether in the end it was all worth it is about as pointless as trying to backtrack and figure what could have happened if we didn't shelter in place, or didn't close our borders, or didn't allow European travel etc, etc, etc. In either scenario, the economy would have tanked.

Widespread deadly disease has that effect. Spilt milk.

[aquietpath]

Originally Posted by PACman2521

Great article on how infections have been spreading and how we should be thinking as activities increase.

"Ignoring the terrible outbreaks in nursing homes, we find that the biggest outbreaks are in prisons, religious ceremonies, and workplaces, such a meat packing facilities and call centers. Any environment that is enclosed, with poor air circulation and high density of people, spells trouble."

"Basically, as the work closures are loosened, and we start to venture out more, possibly even resuming in-office activities, you need to look at your environment and make judgments. How many people are here, how much airflow is there around me, and how long will I be in this environment."

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the...hem-avoid-them

Excellent information; thanks for sharing this link.

[CDContribuitor]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...iously/611419/

Originally Posted by BLDSoon

I cant tell if you're serious or you are saying some of these things for the sake of debate.

How much money did we spend on the war with Iraq? How many soldiers lost their lives there? How many Iraqis? All because about 3K people lost their lives at the World Trade Center. Some decided that number of lives was worth going to that huge money and human expense for. What's so different now besides an enemy we cant see?

I like how you assume you will be alive and in a position to be making that assessment 5 years from now. Its easier to assume that than the alternative isn't it? Its entirely possible that you could very well be one of the lives whose worth is being evaluated against the financial damage. If that's the case I wonder whether you'd still make that assessment.

There is no either or here. There is no economy without consumer and investor confidence. There will be none of the above with widespread death from any cause.

Sitting here trying to calculate whether in the end it was all worth it is about as pointless as trying to backtrack and figure what could have happened if we didn't shelter in place, or didn't close our borders, or didn't allow European travel etc, etc, etc. In either scenario, the economy would have tanked.

Widespread deadly disease has that effect. Spilt milk.