Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Boston, Fall River, Somerville: nightclubs, dating, party)

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by robr2

Sorry - yes, temp scans and general questions regarding other symptoms. If a certain threshold is met, they are sent for formal testing.

OK, our company (also deemed an "essential" business) is doing this also. I honestly think this is being done more to assuage employee anxiety, because this does nothing for asymptomatic spread.

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

because this does nothing for asymptomatic spread.

Agreed. We have the same policy and it really doesn't do much other than send people home for a mini-vacation if they read a little high.

We've implemented a mask policy in the last week that might do more to prevent spread. I say might because they aren't providing the masks. SO some will have an N95, and others a bandana.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

We've implemented a mask policy in the last week that might do more to prevent spread. I say might because they aren't providing the masks. SO some will have an N95, and others a bandana.

My suspicion is that by early or late may most people will have a proper mask. So that combined with people who can working from home, working from home, and a prohibition on things like public transport without a proper mask will keep new cases low long enough for a treatment or vaccine.

As they say, we got this.

My workplace is almost completely shut down. One person in my workplace got this. No one else.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

The model has been revised again.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/unite.../massachusetts

MA peak is now pushed out to April 28th and projected deaths has climbed from 6700 to 8200.


Puts MA solidly as #2 projected deaths in the country. CT is 5400 and NJ is 4400 projected deaths

Why is MA so bad?

I would guess that without the college students around, the population of Massachusetts skews much older.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

The model has been revised again.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/unite.../massachusetts

MA peak is now pushed out to April 28th and projected deaths has climbed from 6700 to 8200.


Puts MA solidly as #2 projected deaths in the country. CT is 5400 and NJ is 4400 projected deaths

Why is MA so bad?

It seems that model puts a lot of weight on the four social distancing measures and MA technically doesn't have a "stay at home" order in place. "Stay at Home" orders in most places look a lot like what we're currently doing in MA, we're just not calling it an "order." But in terms of that model, MA is not taking 25% of the measures that many states are taking which, when combined with our relatively high current case count, probably translates to higher infection/death projections.

I'm also wondering if how states report data is impacting projections leads to variations in the model for each state. There is no standardized method for testing and reporting. MA is ahead of the curve in testing, contact tracing, etc. We're among the best in per capita testing. And a number of the states that have tested better per capita (Washington, New York, New Jersey) are further along in the outbreak progression (closer to peak). So for them, there's a better notion of what to expect in the coming weeks.

I'm not going to sit in my armchair and say that the model is wrong, but I have some questions. I wouldn't be shocked if MA did end up being #2 in projected deaths. But I'd wager it's more likely that the model continues to be revised and will look less bleak in a week or so. But if we bail on social distancing measures in this critical stretch, it could also get much worse.

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I'm not going to sit in my armchair and say that the model is wrong, but I have some questions. I wouldn't be shocked if MA did end up being #2 in projected deaths. But I'd wager it's more likely that the model continues to be revised and will look less bleak in a week or so. But if we bail on social distancing measures in this critical stretch, it could also get much worse.

The model is only as good as the data it receives so my assumption is that with MA having a lower number of cases yesterday compared to a few days ago, the model will be revised once again and possibly downwards. I've been watching it for a couple weeks now, and the date has continuously been pushed back, but the death tool was originally 8K, revised down to lower 6K, then to almost 7K and now back to 8200.

But even with the constant revisions, MA has consistently been projected to be one of the harder hit states.

[charolastra00]

Originally Posted by lrfox

It seems that model puts a lot of weight on the four social distancing measures and MA technically doesn't have a "stay at home" order in place. "Stay at Home" orders in most places look a lot like what we're currently doing in MA, we're just not calling it an "order." But in terms of that model, MA is not taking 25% of the measures that many states are taking which, when combined with our relatively high current case count, probably translates to higher infection/death projections.

I'm also wondering if how states report data is impacting projections leads to variations in the model for each state. There is no standardized method for testing and reporting. MA is ahead of the curve in testing, contact tracing, etc. We're among the best in per capita testing. And a number of the states that have tested better per capita (Washington, New York, New Jersey) are further along in the outbreak progression (closer to peak). So for them, there's a better notion of what to expect in the coming weeks.

I'm not going to sit in my armchair and say that the model is wrong, but I have some questions. I wouldn't be shocked if MA did end up being #2 in projected deaths. But I'd wager it's more likely that the model continues to be revised and will look less bleak in a week or so. But if we bail on social distancing measures in this critical stretch, it could also get much worse.

My understanding of the methodology is that they're not really looking at total known cases because we know that that data isn't accurate and is wildly different between states. Instead, it's looking at hospital admissions and death rates, combined with forecasting developed from data in Europe and weighing heavily into account social distancing measures.



And that makes sense. Original projections were largely based on Chinese data. Now, we have a lot of European data instead and we can assume that both hospitalizations and deaths are a lower percentage of total cases. Without wide scale testing, though, we can't know how many total cases there are.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

I would guess that without the college students around, the population of Massachusetts skews much older.

Long ago when I first saw GIS it showed average ages. Amherst was without question the youngest median age. Now I'm not sure.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/...pus-just-case/

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2...salary-freeze/

This still isn't looking good folks.

Ok let's suppose we flatten this thing in another month to six weeks. Ok now what?

Compromised immunity systems, obesity, hypertension and smoking seem to be the highest risk factors. This explains why you see a combination of elderly in homes and urban areas getting hit. Like 1918 I've read that opening the windows for air is a huge factor.

Having said this how can we reopen and be safe? As mentioned by someone earlier if say some manager or teacher or professor that is elderly is surrounded with people that have it but aren't effected and the person dies then what?

Testing has to be broader and go beyond first responders. Areas with larger amounts of people for constant functions. Schools and universities I would argue have a priority. Then we can move onto things like hotels, conventions and sports etc.

I think this might get to the point of if you want to go back to work you can if you are immune. If you aren't then you have to figure out a way to do it online. Otherwise we risk playing wack a mole for years. It's either immunity or a vaccine.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

I've seen very little media attention to Massachusetts in general with regards to the severity of the outbreak. It's been mostly NY getting the attention, with some mention to neighboring CT and NJ. But with MA poised to become #2, you would think that there would be more media focus onto the outbreak here considering it's late peak? I've seen a quick mention of the field hospital at DCU center and that was it.

Instead, you read articles like this for example.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/so...cid=spartanntp



As of today, SD has 800 or so cases total and 6 deaths. It's projected to peak with 161 total deaths. That's one of the nation's largest hot spots?? I hate to get political here...but I can't help but wonder if it is.

South Dakota isn't a hot spot - it's Sioux Falls that is a hot spot. 300 hundred cases thus far are related to one employer -- about 10% of the employees there. The mayor has implemented some restrictions but has no control over the 4 surrounding counties. The governor seems to be a Libertarian with a "I know it's gonna happen, but it's not my job to tell people what to do - they can do what they feel is right."

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Except that it’s a valid argument. Look at who is landing in the hospital. Not many under the age of 50. I’m 61. I’m benched until there is a vaccine or a successful containment program (which ain’t gonna happen in the United States). Any time I’m in a public place, I have no choice but to adopt germ-o-phobe behavior. I can’t be around people who don’t practice social distancing unless they’re immune and we aren’t antibody testing so I can’t identify immune people. A Millennial doesn’t have to behave that way. They just can’t visit their parents.

I’m affluent enough that I don’t have to risk contracting the disease. My girlfriend telecommutes and it’s unlikely she will be face to face in a work environment for months. The problem is that there are a huge number of at risk people who don’t have either of those options. The majority of jobs can’t telecommute. People live in multi-generational households because it’s what they can afford. The brunt of the risk is born by the lowest socioeconomic classes. Money and 21st century job skills give you choices.

So let me see if I got this right, you've decided that since mostly people over 50 go to the hospital with the virus that it's ok to open barbershops? That's some amazing logic. If you pass the virus to the barber and he cuts the hair of 15 people a day, in a 5 day work week that would be 75 people, if only 30% of them caught the virus from the barber, and each of them would set off another whole chain of contagion probably resulting in a new outbreak of a few hundred people or more, and it's highly probable that some of the people who get the virus from the barber's clients will be old or immunocompromised and quite possibly will die.

So please, explain to me how anything that you said makes a case for opening barbershops.