Did you catch it ?

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So if I'm reading this correctly, you're saying I have a point that validly counters your point, but because, and only because, it is technically possible for someone to post something malicious anonymously, nothing I've said is therefore valid.

I must confess I do not understand how you get there.

If it is important to you, perhaps expand on your reasoning a bit more? I do not understand which point you think you have made somehow counters some point I have made. Truly puzzled actually. So maybe spell out those points out explicitly? And I certainly would not claim none of your points were valid - I thought you brought some interesting points up.

 

[Everskyward]

If you focus on arguments and data and don’t try and make arguments from authority, then I agree that individual credentials should not be relevant here at all (as I noted in my post containing the question.)

OTOH, I don’t think one should simply let repeated fallacies while trying to cloak oneself under some likely false authority go unnoted.

The two of you obviously disagree. So what? The people reading can make their own judgment. I have been reading the thread, and you repeat yourself over and over about how there isn't any proof (that you accept, anyway) that coercive distancing has worked. See, I can even quote you from memory. But this is not a controlled experiment, so there can be no empirical proof, only anecdotal proof.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The two of you obviously disagree. So what? The people reading can make their own judgment. I have been reading the thread, and you repeat yourself over and over about how there isn't any proof (that you accept, anyway) that coercive distancing has worked. See, I can even quote you from memory. But this is not a controlled experiment, so there can be no empirical proof, only anecdotal proof.

Well here is an actual scientific point to discuss. I disagree on this last statement. There are plenty of actual empirical data which could show that social distancing works in the US for Covid-19. This is not a non-falsifiable belief.

For example, one could correlate measures of social distancing such as cell phone records with decreases in the growth of actual death rates.

Or alternately one could show that coercive social distancing policies (which I tend to be more concerned with) have had a measurable effect of the growth rate of deaths by comparing states or counties.

I think one can imagine lots of other potential studies which could bear on this question.

So my general point has been where is such data and analysis? And without it, why should we conclude that it is absolutely clear that social distancing works here in the US for Covid-19?

There actually was a preprint which reported a study that analyzed to the end of March which purported to show that such increased isolation measured from cell phone records correlated with decreased confirmed cases. So one could cite and discuss that (which unfortunately didn’t happen). That of course is not a correlation with deaths, and was a quite modest effect (about 20%), and was so poorly reported that it makes one wonder about it’s validity.

On the other hand we now see the report by Reilly that there is no effect of having a coercive social distancing order on deaths when adjusted for population size and density. I have personally examined that analysis and confirmed that result on a similar dataset. Obviously that is a limited way to make the comparison, but it is accurate so far as it goes.

I have been searching and the problem of empirically determining whether an intervention has an effect on the growth rate of epidemics has been much more lightly covered than I would have expected. But I am continuing my research into this hoping there has been more and better studies on past epidemics.

There are a lot of model studies on Covid-19 which show that the model predicted more deaths and there have been fewer. But that is not particularly strong evidence that the interventions which have been applied were causative of fewer deaths, as many have argued.

Do I think it is reasonable to argue that the data are not terribly clear at this point, and to debate the relative strength of the evidence one way or another - absolutely - that is how science advances. But I do not think it reasonable to assert that there is no empirical data which can bear on this question, or that the answer is crystal clear, or consistently de-emphasize data because it doesn’t agree with one’s pre-conceived notions, or engage in fallacious arguments to try and support one’s ideas.

 

[JOhnH]

@PeterNSteinmetz
I have read and respected your posts on this board for years. But as has been said, this is not a medical peer review board. This is entertainment. Yes, there are several people that post on there whom I have a great deal of respect for and will take their "opinions" very seriously. Others, well maybe not so seriously. But in order to gain respect here, you have to earn respect here. I do not see the benefit on calling anyone out asking for their real name and real credentials. I have made the mistake of identifying myself on this board and have regretted it several times. And I'm no expert on anything and have never claimed to be.

I respectfully (and I mean that) wish that you would "just drop it" (this confrontation with Chemgeek), but continue to offer your insight. Nothing he says will change my mind unless I confirm it from legitimate sources, and if I confirm his opinions often enough, he will earn my "POA" trust and I will be more willing to believe him. Same goes for you and others. Let's continue this discussion as if we all slept at a Holiday Inn rather than gained PHDs from MIT.

sidenot: @bbchien is pretty much the only one that has gained my complete trust here. Others like @denverpilot (among many) have earned my respect. But nobody is perfect and nobody should be required to reveal their identity.

 

[Dana]

Oh, jeez. I don't know what field of science chemgeek works in, but it's obvious that he has a good grasp of the statistical analysis involved, and more than a passing familiarity with the medical profession, and I hope he continues to share his insights. Whether his underlying data is valid is another question, but I suspect it's as good as anybody's at this point, there are still a LOT of unknowns here.

As for the effectiveness of social distancing, it's obvious that it will at least delay the spread of the disease-- if you don't associate with anybody who has the disease you won't get it. However, social distancing isn't perfect so unless a cure is found, everybody eventually will get it, which is also obvious.

So, all social distancing can do is delay things. If a cure is found before everybody gets it, many lives will be saved. Or, if it delays things enough so that the hospitals aren't overwhelmed, they're able to treat (not cure, but keep them alive until they get better) the new cases as they come up.

It's clear that social distancing "works". What's less clear is how well it works, and whether it works well enough to be worth the cost. We'll never know how well it works or worked, since we haven't tested the alternative (I.e. no social distancing) in the same conditions. Nor do we have a good handle on the cost, indeed different people will assess the cost differently. So it's a judgement call, based on imperfect data and assumptions, and we'll never truly know whether it was worth the cost.

 

[Palmpilot]

I've noticed that posting one's real name and/or having certain credentials, while they may be helpful, are not always a guarantee that the person knows what they are talking about. The best indicator is whether the assertions of fact the person makes can be independently verified, and whether any inferences expressed logically follow from the facts.

 

[Palmpilot]

...We'll never know how well it works or worked, since we haven't tested the alternative (I.e. no social distancing) in the same conditions...

There are a few states and nations that have seemingly volunteered their citizens to be control groups.

 

[RJM62]

There are a few states and nations that have seemingly volunteered their citizens to be control groups.

Indeed. Sweden is one.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...million?tab=chart&country=FRA+ITA+SWE+GBR+USA

Rich

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Oh, jeez. I don't know what field of science chemgeek works in, but it's obvious that he has a good grasp of the statistical analysis involved, and more than a passing familiarity with the medical profession, and I hope he continues to share his insights. Whether his underlying data is valid is another question, but I suspect it's as good as anybody's at this point, there are still a LOT of unknowns here.

As for the effectiveness of social distancing, it's obvious that it will at least delay the spread of the disease-- if you don't associate with anybody who has the disease you won't get it. However, social distancing isn't perfect so unless a cure is found, everybody eventually will get it, which is also obvious.

So, all social distancing can do is delay things. If a cure is found before everybody gets it, many lives will be saved. Or, if it delays things enough so that the hospitals aren't overwhelmed, they're able to treat (not cure, but keep them alive until they get better) the new cases as they come up.

It's clear that social distancing "works". What's less clear is how well it works, and whether it works well enough to be worth the cost. We'll never know how well it works or worked, since we haven't tested the alternative (I.e. no social distancing) in the same conditions. Nor do we have a good handle on the cost, indeed different people will assess the cost differently. So it's a judgement call, based on imperfect data and assumptions, and we'll never truly know whether it was worth the cost.

Well, it isn't obvious, as you only need the spread rate to be below 1.0 to kill it. So imperfection, in this case, is not the enemy of the good.

 

[MuseChaser]

...
It's clear that social distancing "works". What's less clear is how well it works, and whether it works well enough to be worth the cost. We'll never know how well it works or worked, since we haven't tested the alternative (I.e. no social distancing) in the same conditions. Nor do we have a good handle on the cost, indeed different people will assess the cost differently. So it's a judgement call, based on imperfect data and assumptions, and we'll never truly know whether it was worth the cost.

This is the entire crux of the issue. In our county, we are now up to 30 fatalities attributed to Covid infections, the vast majority involving serious comorbidites. 30 is also our average number of vehicular deaths per year (at least going by 2014 data), and the number of murders in Syracuse in 2018. We lose about 1000 people to cancer every year in our county. All of that, Covid- and non-Covid-related, is terrible and tragic, and we should do the best we can to avoid deaths due to other than peaceful passing due to human chronological expiration. Our response to Covid has so many harmful side effects for every single person in society, however, and seems to be greatly disproportionate to the other tragic challenges we humans face. A dispassionate cost/benefit analysis is always appropriate...perhaps even moreso when the challenge is so visceral in nature, attacking the weakest of our loved ones.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It's clear that social distancing "works". What's less clear is how well it works, and whether it works well enough to be worth the cost. We'll never know how well it works or worked, since we haven't tested the alternative (I.e. no social distancing) in the same conditions. Nor do we have a good handle on the cost, indeed different people will assess the cost differently. So it's a judgement call, based on imperfect data and assumptions, and we'll never truly know whether it was worth the cost.

Largely I agree. From a policy perspective the important question is the cost benefit analysis, which as noted is poorly understood at this point.

Also important I think to distinguish between coercive lockdowns and voluntary social distancing because a lot of collateral damage is caused by coercive policies, which tend to be broader and less finely tuned to circumstances than what people do voluntarily.

I do not agree that there is no data or will not be data to address the effectiveness of social distancing or coercive lockdowns. The data and analyses on coercive lockdowns that is presently available suggest they have not worked in the US to reduce deaths due to SARS Cov-2. See the Reilly study as well as the analysis out of Israel which is more international in nature. What is unclear in that is whether that is because the effect of social distancing is too weak to reduce deaths or people don’t distance enough.

Data is available which can be used to analyze social distancing generally. It perhaps weakly suggests there is an effect on measured confirmed cases though a small one. There is also data to suggest that social distancing increased in the US as this epidemic progressed in late March early April. A key question in terms of policy is whether that was voluntary or caused by coercive measures.

I think that as the dust settles here a bit there will be more data and analyses bearing on this question, though the social sciences are never so clear as harder sciences in their conclusions.

 

[Palmpilot]

Well, it isn't obvious, as you only need the spread rate to be below 1.0 to kill it. So imperfection, in this case, is not the enemy of the good.

"The best is the enemy of the good."

 

[Everskyward]

This is the entire crux of the issue. In our county, we are now up to 30 fatalities attributed to Covid infections, the vast majority involving serious comorbidites. 30 is also our average number of vehicular deaths per year (at least going by 2014 data), and the number of murders in Syracuse in 2018. We lose about 1000 people to cancer every year in our county. All of that, Covid- and non-Covid-related, is terrible and tragic, and we should do the best we can to avoid deaths due to other than peaceful passing due to human chronological expiration. Our response to Covid has so many harmful side effects for every single person in society, however, and seems to be greatly disproportionate to the other tragic challenges we humans face. A dispassionate cost/benefit analysis is always appropriate...perhaps even moreso when the challenge is so visceral in nature, attacking the weakest of our loved ones.

The thing is, you only know how many cases/fatalities there are in your location (I guess you are talking about Syracuse) with social distancing implemented. You don't know what the count would have been if it had not been implemented. Therefore, doing a cost/benefit analysis is difficult. Not only that, people have been affected to different degrees. Some people and businesses have benefited from the situation. My life has only been mildly disrupted. I would have been floating down the Grand Canyon right now instead of sitting in my condo. Oh well.

 

[Dana]

There are a few states and nations that have seemingly volunteered their citizens to be control groups.

Yes, but we can't compare apples and apples... NYC is very different from Sweden, which is very different from China.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yes, but we can't compare apples and apples... NYC is very different from Sweden, which is very different from China.

True, the "control groups" are far from ideal. I doubt that we'll ever have perfect data.

This article at least tries to compare Sweden to roughly comparable countries:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/europe/sweden-coronavirus-lockdown-strategy-intl/index.html

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The thing is, you only know how many cases/fatalities there are in your location (I guess you are talking about Syracuse) with social distancing implemented. You don't know what the count would have been if it had not been implemented.

There are 8 states which did not have coercive lockdowns. The comparison between those and the states with coercive lockdowns, as performed by Reilly, showed that if you control for population size and density, there is no independent effect of coercive lockdowns on deaths due to Covid-19 when looking at the most recent day in his dataset.

I have actually looked at the development of deaths over time since the state crossed a threshold of 0.3 deaths per million and there is no obvious separation of coercive lockdown states versus non-lockdown in that either (proper statistical testing is still being worked on).

Quite correct that the population even in states without a coercive lockdown may have been engaging in some level of social distancing voluntarily. One can get some handle on this with indirect measurements such as cell phone mobility, though these measurements obviously have their own limitations. As far as I am aware there is no study yet looking at correlating these cellphone records with deaths rates. Would be an interesting one.

 

[RJM62]

The thing is, you only know how many cases/fatalities there are in your location (I guess you are talking about Syracuse) with social distancing implemented. You don't know what the count would have been if it had not been implemented. Therefore, doing a cost/benefit analysis is difficult. Not only that, people have been affected to different degrees. Some people and businesses have benefited from the situation. My life has only been mildly disrupted. I would have been floating down the Grand Canyon right now instead of sitting in my condo. Oh well.

I doubt there would be any difference at all.

I'm "high-risk" because of diabetes and a history of pneumonia. I know I have to take precautions to protect myself, which just happen to be the same precautions I have to take to protect others. I would do so regardless of whether Big Brother told me to because of that pesky self-preservation instinct. That's my responsibility, and I accept it. I didn't ask, and don't require, the rest of the state, nation, and world to bankrupt themselves to help me do those things.

The pneumonia part I'd actually forgotten about until my doctor reminded me yesterday during an "annual physical," conducted over the phone and without lab work or an actual physical exam. The restrictions in place prevent him from being able to do those things, all in the name of Big Brother's "protecting" me. From whom? My doctor? If you think I'm angry, you should have heard him. He's ready to grab a torch and a pitchfork and storm the State House.

The point is that I'm perfectly capable of protecting myself, and perfectly inclined to do so, without destroying the lives of my fellow citizens.

I should also mention that my advertising income has almost doubled since this lockdown began due to people ordering more stuff online. I get a vig on whatever they order while one of my sites' cookies is on their browsers. So I'm one of the few who's actually profiting from the lockdown, albeit passively. I'm still opposed to it, at least how it's being implemented in my state. I take no pleasure in profiting from the misery of my neighbors.

I've been donating any revenue above my average to local charities. I'll do the same thing with the stimulus payment if the government ever gets around to sending it. I think this whole thing is wrong to the point of being immoral, and I don't want to profit at the expense of those who are victimized by the lockdown.

Rich

 

[Everskyward]

There are 8 states which did not have coercive lockdowns. The comparison between those and the states with coercive lockdowns, as performed by Reilly, showed that if you control for population size and density, there is no independent effect of coercive lockdowns on deaths due to Covid-19 when looking at the most recent day in his dataset.

The states you mention may not have statewide orders, but various local agencies have mandated distancing requirements. In addition, even the states that do have statewide orders leave many exceptions. Therefore there is no way to conduct any kind of accurate study. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[Everskyward]

I doubt there would be any difference at all.

While I do think that there would be a difference. Look at the people who are or were unable to distance, such as on cruise ships or on that aircraft carrier, also in the meat packing plants.

 

[RJM62]

While I do think that there would be a difference. Look at the people who are or were unable to distance, such as on cruise ships or on that aircraft carrier.

Most of us don't live on ships.

Cruise ships do make for a good incidental, if not natural experiment, however. This article is worth the read. Here's an excerpt:

As of February 20, tests of most of the 3,711 people aboard the Diamond Princess confirmed that 634, or 17 percent, had the virus; 328 of them did not have symptoms at the time of diagnosis. Of those with symptoms, the fatality ratio was 1.9 percent, Russell and colleagues calculate. Of all infected, that ratio was 0.91 percent. Those 70 and older were most vulnerable, with an overall fatality ratio of about 7.3 percent.

The median age of cruise ship passengers is in their 60's, making the tight confines of a ship perhaps second only to the subways in terms of infection risk. The overall infection rate on the ship, however, was 17 percent (less than New York City's infection rate), and the death rate as a percentage of the entire population (infected and uninfected) was well under 1 percent.

Also consider that cruise ships typically don't have medical facilities able to provide advanced life support services to multiple patients in respiratory distress; that the passengers and crew breathe recirculated air; that they receive their meals from crew members who live in very tight quarters; that they visit many ports-of-call in places not renown for their public health systems; and that, as you mentioned, they really can't practice anything resembling social distancing.

In short, a cruise ship is nothing like a situation in which people choose for themselves how to protect themselves, whether or not (or how much) to social distance, with whom to associate, where to eat, and so forth. Cruise ship passengers have little more control over those decisions than do prisoners. It's not a valid comparison to a system based on voluntary social distancing and individual responsibility for personal protection and risk management.

Rich

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The states you mention may not have statewide orders, but various local agencies have mandated distancing requirements. In addition, even the states that do have statewide orders leave many exceptions. Therefore there is no way to conduct any kind of accurate study. Garbage in, garbage out.

Well maybe best to approach this from a different angle. Some questions:

Is the any evidence, at least possibly obtainable, which would persuade you that the statement “the coercive lockdowns have decreased Covid-19 deaths or confirmed cases” is false?

And do you assert that statement is true?

 

[Dave Theisen]

You all can sit back and relax while we here in Georgia will be the test case for the country.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

There are 8 states which did not have coercive lockdowns. The comparison between those and the states with coercive lockdowns, as performed by Reilly, showed that if you control for population size and density, there is no independent effect of coercive lockdowns on deaths due to Covid-19 when looking at the most recent day in his dataset.

I have actually looked at the development of deaths over time since the state crossed a threshold of 0.3 deaths per million and there is no obvious separation of coercive lockdown states versus non-lockdown in that either (proper statistical testing is still being worked on).

Quite correct that the population even in states without a coercive lockdown may have been engaging in some level of social distancing voluntarily. One can get some handle on this with indirect measurements such as cell phone mobility, though these measurements obviously have their own limitations. As far as I am aware there is no study yet looking at correlating these cellphone records with deaths rates. Would be an interesting one.

This is one of the states that doesn't have a lock-down. Just west of Omaha, looking towards Lincoln, the largest city.

This doesn't make a strong case about the lack of efficacy of any sort of lock-down. Everyone is pretty well socially distanced, I think. This is a fly-over state, not a lot of people come here.

 

[Dana]

There are 8 states which did not have coercive lockdowns. The comparison between those and the states with coercive lockdowns, as performed by Reilly, showed that if you control for population size and density...

Population size is one thing, but how do you control for population density? Is the effect linear? Polynomial? Exponential? The difference between NYC and, say, Omaha, aren't just a matter of density, but demographics, income level, education level, mobility (consider the NYC subway system and the intense commuter culture), the relationship certainly won't be linear.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Population size is one thing, but how do you control for population density? Is the effect linear? Polynomial? Exponential? The difference between NYC and, say, Omaha, aren't just a matter of density, but demographics, income level, education level, mobility (consider the NYC subway system and the intense commuter culture), the relationship certainly won't be linear.

Dana- the bottom of the picture in the post above yours is Omaha.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

A harrowing perspective on the worldwide consequences of shutdowns based on the recent WHO warning. 250 million may starve to death.

https://medium.com/@davidgoldhill/treat-the-patient-not-the-virus-f8dcd87231e7

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Population size is one thing, but how do you control for population density? Is the effect linear? Polynomial? Exponential? The difference between NYC and, say, Omaha, aren't just a matter of density, but demographics, income level, education level, mobility (consider the NYC subway system and the intense commuter culture), the relationship certainly won't be linear.

Reilly’s analysis used a linear factor on population in a state and it’s average population density. I used those plus their interaction. All 3 were significant, so that is including a population squared term, effectively. The analysis also included several of the other items you mentioned. Perhaps read his article?

If you look at the graphs of deaths on a log scale, normalized for the maximum values on a common day as a function of time since reaching the threshold of 0.3 deaths per million, there is no obvious distinction between lockdown and non-lockdown states in the shape of the curves. (I have not figured out the best statistical test yet.)

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Well maybe best to approach this from a different angle. Some questions:

Is the any evidence, at least possibly obtainable, which would persuade you that the statement “the coercive lockdowns have decreased Covid-19 deaths or confirmed cases” is false?

And do you assert that statement is true?

Also for [USEr]@Cap’n Jack [/User]and @Dana. How would you answer these questions?

 

[Everskyward]

Well maybe best to approach this from a different angle.

Since your other angle didn't work?

Is the any evidence, at least possibly obtainable, which would persuade you that the statement “the coercive lockdowns have decreased Covid-19 deaths or confirmed cases” is false?

And do you assert that statement is true?

Since Covid-19 is spread by contact with other people, if there is 100% no contact, it wouldn't spread. That is impossible to achieve though, so there have been varying degrees of limiting contact. This is just logic.

A whole different question is whether or not it has been worth it. That is not something people will ever agree on, so there's no sense debating it.

That said, I go outside all the time, and would go further if it was allowed. I am not that worried for my own sake, however I live in a multifamily building and the people across the hall are in their 80s. I wouldn't want to be the one to bring it into the building.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Also for [USEr]@Cap’n Jack [/User]and @Dana. How would you answer these questions?

I certainly don't have enough information to say. As my picture shows, at least some of the states without a lock-down really don't need one because people are both isolated, and have little contact with people from outside. VietNam had fairly severe lock-downs, at least in the major cities, and I saw some headlines that claimed they didn't have a single death. My understanding is that if you seemed sick, they put you in some sort of facility with other people.
As @Everskyward said, another question is whether the shutdowns were worth it. We are only now starting to get reasonable information about how many were actually infected, and as that testing continues, we may find a lot of us were infected with few symptoms. It's possible the world over reacted because China, due to a lack of information, may have over-reacted. They did shut down their major holiday- the equivalent of Christmas and Thanksgiving here. The orders banning travel came down on 17th January in China. I do have a small window, as I work with a number of Chinese there (dealers and customers). Since there is so much travel there, many people were planning to leave Saturday, 18 Jan. My point is that many countries took notice of that, and also did the lock-down as the pandemic spread. These countries also didn't have the ability to see how many were actually infected.

At this point, it may be possible to say the lock-downs weren't needed only with 20/20 hind-sight. What happens if the next one is more deadly?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Since Covid-19 is spread by contact with other people, if there is 100% no contact, it wouldn't spread. That is impossible to achieve though, so there have been varying degrees of limiting contact. This is just logic.

So it doesn’t sound like you can think of any evidence that would ever persuade you of the falsity of the statement.

If there is none, that means you have a non-falsifiable belief that either coercive lockdowns or social distancing has worked in the US with respect to Covid-19. There really is no point then discussing it further pretending evidence matters, because it does not in terms of your belief.

Thinking about it from this other angle often clarifies the issue quite quickly.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

As @Everskyward said, another question is whether the shutdowns were worth it.

At this point, it may be possible to say the lock-downs weren't needed only with 20/20 hind-sight. What happens if the next one is more deadly?

Well that’s a candid evaluation of knowledge, cool.

I think it will turn out to have been an enormous error, disastrous really. And my own view is that politicians should have known better. Ionniades at Stanford warned in early to mid-March that we did not have to type of information needed to be taking these kind of drastic steps.

I also agree we foolishly followed the Chinese lead on this. They are a despotic regime which censors the media - their government cannot be trusted. We still don’t know the full story on how this virus came to infect people in Wuhan. If it did come out of the lab by accident their incompetence in handling this and the panicy response of other world governments may well end up killing more people than Mao did with his cultural revolution.

It is quite sobering and appalling to consider the magnitude of this set of mistakes.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Well that’s a candid evaluation of knowledge, cool.

I think it will turn out to have been an enormous error, disastrous really. And my own view is that politicians should have known better. Ionniades at Stanford warned in early to mid-March that we did not have to type of information needed to be taking these kind of drastic steps.

We didn't have the type of information to know what steps to take.

I also agree we foolishly followed the Chinese lead on this. They are a despotic regime which censors the media - their government cannot be trusted. We still don’t know the full story on how this virus came to infect people in Wuhan. If it did come out of the lab by accident their incompetence in handling this and the panicy response of other world governments may well end up killing more people than Mao did with his cultural revolution.

It is quite sobering and appalling to consider the magnitude of this set of mistakes.

The term "foolishly" may only apply with 20/20 hind sight. If it were more deadly, we would be glad of the lock-downs, social distancing, and so forth. More people are dying that what is normal this time of year, in the places with higher population such as NYC.
There is a new theory that suggests this virus originated outside of Wuhan- I note that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (emphasis mine):

"In early April, a paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) raised the eyebrows of a number of genomic epidemiologists. It suggested that there were three distinct variants of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, spreading in different regions of the world—one predominantly in Australia and North America, one in China, and one in Europe. It also suggested that the variant circulating in North America and Australia was older than the one that appeared in Wuhan, China, at the end of December (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2004999117).

If this were true, the outbreak of COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, would have started outside Wuhan, which contradicts scientific consensus."
https://cen.acs.org/biological-chem...letter&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=CEN
Original reference:
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/17/9241

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

We didn't have the type of information to know what steps to take.

The term "foolishly" may only apply with 20/20 hind sight. If it were more deadly, we would be glad of the lock-downs, social distancing, and so forth. More people are dying that what is normal this time of year, in the places with higher population such as NYC.
There is a new theory that suggests this virus originated outside of Wuhan- I note that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (emphasis mine):

"In early April, a paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) raised the eyebrows of a number of genomic epidemiologists. It suggested that there were three distinct variants of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, spreading in different regions of the world—one predominantly in Australia and North America, one in China, and one in Europe. It also suggested that the variant circulating in North America and Australia was older than the one that appeared in Wuhan, China, at the end of December (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2004999117).

If this were true, the outbreak of COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, would have started outside Wuhan, which contradicts scientific consensus."
https://cen.acs.org/biological-chem...letter&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=CEN
Original reference:
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/17/9241

That is correct, we didn’t have very good information. So in my view, you don’t then start coercing people to do things they don’t otherwise want to do, unless you are really certain that what they are going to do or do is an imminent threat of serious injury or death to other people. Sort of a live and let live philosophy. It the politicians had followed that precept, we likely would have had a lot less collateral damage.

If it is clearly such a terribly dangerous virus that people having casual contact are an imminent threat, it will not be necessary to coerce people, particularly when any person can choose to stay home and avoid it if they want to.

Thanks for the link about the different strains. Interesting.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

More people are dying that what is normal this time of year, in the places with higher population such as NYC.

Is that true and there is a new report out? My understanding was that the MMMR from the start of April had failed to show an increase in total mortality. Though I did not note the New York numbers specifically.

 

[Everskyward]

You can play around with this site. Yes, there have been more deaths than normal for this time period. New York State and New York City are particularly high.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

"In early April, a paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) raised the eyebrows of a number of genomic epidemiologists. It suggested that there were three distinct variants of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, spreading in different regions of the world—one predominantly in Australia and North America, one in China, and one in Europe. It also suggested that the variant circulating in North America and Australia was older than the one that appeared in Wuhan, China, at the end of December (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2004999117).

If this were true, the outbreak of COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, would have started outside Wuhan, which contradicts scientific consensus."

I had a quick look at this paper and it is definitely interesting. Seems like the closest relations to the bat virus are in China and the USA. It then seems to spread through east asia and China principally. Their figure 1 is quite intriguing to look at.

 

[RJM62]

I certainly don't have enough information to say. As my picture shows, at least some of the states without a lock-down really don't need one because people are both isolated, and have little contact with people from outside. VietNam had fairly severe lock-downs, at least in the major cities, and I saw some headlines that claimed they didn't have a single death. My understanding is that if you seemed sick, they put you in some sort of facility with other people.
As @Everskyward said, another question is whether the shutdowns were worth it. We are only now starting to get reasonable information about how many were actually infected, and as that testing continues, we may find a lot of us were infected with few symptoms. It's possible the world over reacted because China, due to a lack of information, may have over-reacted. They did shut down their major holiday- the equivalent of Christmas and Thanksgiving here. The orders banning travel came down on 17th January in China. I do have a small window, as I work with a number of Chinese there (dealers and customers). Since there is so much travel there, many people were planning to leave Saturday, 18 Jan. My point is that many countries took notice of that, and also did the lock-down as the pandemic spread. These countries also didn't have the ability to see how many were actually infected.

At this point, it may be possible to say the lock-downs weren't needed only with 20/20 hind-sight. What happens if the next one is more deadly?

Well, preparation would be nice, for a change. For example:

• States and large cities should have bazillions of masks, gloves, and so forth in stock. If these products have shelf lives, then they should be rotated out for routine use and replaced in the stockpile on a regular basis.
• Hermetically-sealed emergency packages of masks, gloves, and so forth should also be issued to citizens for use in an emergency.
• Critical medical equipment (such as ventilators) must also be obtained, stored, and maintained by states, large cities, and the federal government.
• USPHS should establish a national reserve corps of medical personnel who can be dispatched to problem areas. It would be just like the reserves of any of the Armed Forces.
• Cities like New York need to come up with some alternative to public transportation during epidemics of serious respiratory illnesses. I suggest allowing ordinary individuals to obtain free hack licenses that would only become valid when an emergency is declared, and then issue vouchers for the licensees to carry essential workers in their personal vehicles during declared emergencies. It's not perfect, but it's better than the subway.
• New York City should build a hospital / quarantine center on Governor's Island, stock it, and maintain it. Floyd Bennett Field would be another good place, as well as Riker's Island once it's shut down as a prison (assuming that ever happens).
• A reserve mortuary corps of mortuary science students and retired morticians should be established.

Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head. I'm sure people smarter than I am can come up with more. I'm equally sure that none of them will be implemented.

Rich

 

[Cap'n Jack]

That is correct, we didn’t have very good information. So in my view, you don’t then start coercing people to do things they don’t otherwise want to do, unless you are really certain that what they are going to do or do is an imminent threat of serious injury or death to other people. Sort of a live and let live philosophy. It the politicians had followed that precept, we likely would have had a lot less collateral damage.

If it is clearly such a terribly dangerous virus that people having casual contact are an imminent threat, it will not be necessary to coerce people, particularly when any person can choose to stay home and avoid it if they want to.

Thanks for the link about the different strains. Interesting.

My opinion is that things spread so rapidly that by the time one knows it is bad, or going to be so, it is already too late to decide to lock everything down. The world is was much more connected now than it ever was. Last year, I was in China, Hong Kong, VietNam, Thailand, and Singapore at the end of the year in the space of a few weeks. This year, I was supposed to be in Europe, Canada, and China by now. There's a lot of people who cover more ground than I, and a lot of people moving around. China was probably trying to prevent the spread out of some of the "hot spots" there.

Anyway, just my opinion. We have a couple of MDs on this board who have forgotten more about infectious disease than I'll know.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

My opinion is that things spread so rapidly that by the time one knows it is bad, or going to be so, it is already too late to decide to lock everything down. The world is was much more connected now than it ever was.

I suspect all attempts at quick initial lockdowns are basically going to fail in our very interconnected world. With a virus like this, where it takes a few weeks from when you catch it until you die, it will be quite a while before doctors in the region notice that something is amiss. The first case or two one thinks "hmm... that is strange, I wonder what happened to that patient" but it is not so obviously different than some random normal event. Then after a few more show up you start to thing, something may be going on here. With this type of virus that is often after many more people have been infected and likely infected someone who travelled halfway around the world. Definitely a challenging environment in that respect.