No significant effect of lockdowns on Covid-19 spread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
David Megginson said:
Influenza is way down because it needs human-to-human contact to spread, and there's been a lot less of that.
Click to expand...

The causes of the decrease of type A and B are likely a bit difficult to determine exactly.

But do you think there is data on less human - human contact? The mobility data, which is only a loosely correlated measure, were down for about 4-6 weeks back in February - March 2020, but I think have rebounded.

I have not looked into this deeply either, but would be curious about measures of actual close contact other than the mobility data.
 
David Megginson said:
It's extremely unlikely that most doctors and nurses believe this, or that they've managed to bribe the labs and state public health authorities to collude with them.
Click to expand...

I agree that some sort of underhanded bribes or collusion are highly unlikely.

OTOH, consider this scenario. Given that the total ILIs may be about the same with COVID as past bad flu seasons, it is possible that previously people who came in and passed and this was partly contributed to by a type A or B flu would simple have been reported as dying of the primary other cause like heart disease, diabetes etc. And the hospital would have received no special reimbursement for reporting the flu.

In the present day, person comes in with same situation except Covid rather than type A or B flu. Now there is a significant financial incentive to report the Covid.

People respond very strongly to such financial incentives and so whereas a case might have previously not had the flu mentioned or it was a questionable cause of death, now there is a strong driving force to identify and list the Covid. This could easily bias numbers reported in a significant way. And hospitals have entire departments dedicated to optimizing revenue by listing the right causes of illness and death.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
This, sir, is Fake News, to use a popular term.

I wonder why another, less infectious, respiratory virus (flu) has a low case count this year. Perhaps because most people are wearing masks designed to prevent the spread of airborne respiratory viruses? Perhaps because there is significantly less contact among members of the public and certainly less contact between different family groups? Perhaps because there has been much less international travel to spread a seasonal virus around the world?

Nah....can't be any of that. It's a conspiracy. Let's take the most likely stance that doctors are intentionally skewing the data to make COVID look worse.


Peter, if you don't trust any of the doctors that are the source of the data on flu and COVID rates and numbers, then you also can't trust any of the studies that are created by the doctors either. So there is no point at looking at anything.
Click to expand...
The masks people are wearing are not designed to prevent the spread of viruses. That’s silly.
 
Where are the COVID payments coming from? Can someone provide a source for that? I’ve heard this anecdotally a few times but never seen any documentation.
 
Apparently part of the stimulus package “It is true, however, that the government will pay more to hospitals for COVID-19 cases in two senses: By paying an additional 20% on top of traditional Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients during the public health emergency, and by reimbursing hospitals for treating the uninsured patients with the disease (at that enhanced Medicare rate).

Both of those provisions stem from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/hospital-payments-and-the-covid-19-death-count/

As I noted above, hospitals have entire departments devoted to finding the proper codes for billing which will optimize revenue.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Apparently part of the stimulus package “It is true, however, that the government will pay more to hospitals for COVID-19 cases in two senses: By paying an additional 20% on top of traditional Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients during the public health emergency, and by reimbursing hospitals for treating the uninsured patients with the disease (at that enhanced Medicare rate).

Both of those provisions stem from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/hospital-payments-and-the-covid-19-death-count/

As I noted above, hospitals have entire departments devoted to finding the proper codes for billing which will optimize revenue.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

That there are entire departments devoted to proper insurance billing I knew. Remember bureaucracy is the epoxy that greases the wheels of progress.
 
YKA said:
My live in GF is an RN, and I spend a LOT of time talking with docs and nurses, they all agree that it is true. To get more money, and a lot of money, not just a measly amount, hospitals and clinics call almost everything covid. So your statement is 100% false!
Click to expand...

There was a period in the spring for a few weeks due to a lack of testing capability and time, NY and a few other states allowed morticians to place COVID as the cause of death without a test. However, I believe that has all been rescinded.
Does anyone on here get into those details?

Tim
 
I am a critical care doc. We screen by PCR for multiple viruses, the panels vary by hospital, most have limited supplies. I have yet to have an influenza case this season. That is weird, but we are testing for it. Our panels test for influenza, parainfluenza, multiple corona viruses including Covid19, metapneumovirus, RSV etc. We are still mainly just seeing COVID. I think it is as likely that covid is undercounted as over-counted, and excess death estimates seem to suggest more people are dying from something. I haven’t seen any signs of a conspiracy, and nobody has asked me to overcount COVID cases. If anything, we have been asked to be judicious with testing, as until recently we have been short on testing supplies. It is not a perfect science. The tests aren’t perfect, patients are complicated, but I think most medical people are trying to be accurate.
 
Rockymountain said:
I am a critical care doc. We screen by PCR for multiple viruses, the panels vary by hospital, most have limited supplies. I have yet to have an influenza case this season. That is weird, but we are testing for it. Our panels test for influenza, parainfluenza, multiple corona viruses including Covid19, metapneumovirus, RSV etc. We are still mainly just seeing COVID. I think it is as likely that covid is undercounted as over-counted, and excess death estimates seem to suggest more people are dying from something. I haven’t seen any signs of a conspiracy, and nobody has asked me to overcount COVID cases. If anything, we have been asked to be judicious with testing, as until recently we have been short on testing supplies. It is not a perfect science. The tests aren’t perfect, patients are complicated, but I think most medical people are trying to be accurate.
Click to expand...

Would you happen to have any good sources regarding the excess deaths.

I have also not looked into this deeply but remember the JHU professor having given a lecture stating that in fact there did not appear to be an increase in total mortality. It was subsequently removed from the website.
 
steingar said:
The problems with studies like this is there are two variables you just can't measure. One is what things would look like if everyone actually obeyed the government, really locked down, masked up, and distanced. The other is if no one did. Since you can't measure these things such studies have in my opinion little utility.

@PeterNSteinmetz seems to have quite a dog in this hunt. One wonders why.
Click to expand...
That doesn't seem to be a problem with this study if the study is trying to determine the real-world effectiveness of the mandates as opposed to the hypothetical effectiveness of the proposed measures. The mandates' effectiveness necessarily incorporates adherence.
 
Last edited:
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I have also not looked into this deeply but remember the JHU professor having given a lecture stating that in fact there did not appear to be an increase in total mortality. It was subsequently removed from the website.
Click to expand...

It is still available, without retraction watermark, on The Wayback Machine.
 
YKA said:
My live in GF is an RN, and I spend a LOT of time talking with docs and nurses, they all agree that it is true. To get more money, and a lot of money, not just a measly amount, hospitals and clinics call almost everything covid. So your statement is 100% false!
Click to expand...

This is utter nonsense. I am a physician and a department chief at a tertiary center. We do not profit from COVID and patients are not arbitrarily given positive COVID status. What you are describing would be considered fraud. Every suspected outpatient or ER case undergoes a COVID test and a viral PCR panel. Any patient being admitted to a hospital or undergoing an elective procedure requiring an anesthetic gets tested regardless if they are symptomatic or not. In the very early days before reliable testing was widely available, people with symptoms strongly suggestive of COVID may have been labeled positive without a test, but this has not been true since March of 2020.
 
Cervieres said:
... people with symptoms strongly suggestive of COVID may have been labeled positive without a test, but this has not been true since March of 2020.
Click to expand...

for some areas... Maskachusetts is still reporting some probable cases (cases not confirmed with a PCR test), albeit a relatively small percentage.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
But you agreed with @YKA statement that there is intentional data coverups and flu is being reported as COVID to raise the COVID numbers and make it seem worse. This is just a conspiratorial statement that is not grounded in fact at all.
Click to expand...
In this case, the conspiracy theory must be specific to a jurisdiction where the hospitals do all their own COVID-19 tests, and get funding based on the number of patients they have.

To give a counter-example, here in Ontario, a) hospital funding isn't related to the number of COVID-19 cases, and b) all samples go to provincially-controlled labs for testing, and c) we're seeing exactly the same pattern with abnormally-low influenza caseloads and high C19 caseloads. The conspiracy theory will have to find a way to explain that — maybe American hospitals are secretly sending millions of dollars in bribes to lab techs in Canada, the UK, German, Netherlands, etc so they'll change their results to be in line with the (allegedly faked) C19 test results in the U.S.? Regardless, you end up having to inflate it to a massive James-Bond-villain-style international conspiracy to make it work.
 
David Megginson said:
The conspiracy theory will have to find a way to explain that — maybe American hospitals are secretly sending millions of dollars in bribes to lab techs in Canada, the UK, German, Netherlands, etc so they'll change their results to be in line with the (allegedly faked) C19 test results in the U.S.? Regardless, you end up having to inflate it to a massive James-Bond-villain-style international conspiracy to make it work.
Click to expand...

Exactly, there would have to be a multilevel coordinated conspiracy to forge test results and alter electronic medical records, all punishable by time in federal prison if caught.
 
YKA said:
My live in GF is an RN, and I spend a LOT of time talking with docs and nurses, they all agree that it is true. To get more money, and a lot of money, not just a measly amount, hospitals and clinics call almost everything covid. So your statement is 100% false!
Click to expand...

If you believe this, then your gf's grandfather may have had a point.
 
PPC1052 said:
No, most people are not wearing masks "designed to prevent the spread of airborne respiratory viruses."
Click to expand...

Surgical masks are designed to significantly reduce the spread of airborne aerosol droplets, which is primarily how Covid19 spreads. It's a LOT easier to reduce the spread of aerosol droplets than it is to reduce spread of a naked airborne virus. But we don't have to do the latter, only the former.
 
GaryM said:
Surgical masks are designed to significantly reduce the spread of airborne aerosol droplets, which is primarily how Covid19 spreads. It's a LOT easier to reduce the spread of aerosol droplets than it is to reduce spread of a naked airborne virus. But we don't have to do the latter, only the former.
Click to expand...
JOOC, how effective are cloth masks compared to surgical mask in this regard? If surgical masks block, say, 95% of the virus, what percentage does a cloth mask block?
 
YKA said:
Notice that the flu hasn't been truly discussed in 2020, or so far into 2021. The flu didn't just disappear, they are lumping flu numbers in, to raise the number of cases they call covid. It has been blown way out of proportion!
Click to expand...
Just a quick look shows they have been tracking influenza during the pandemic.
See here: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/pastreports.htm
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I suspect this true from what data I have seen, though have not investigated deeply. I suppose it is possible that basically COVID-19 has taken over as the flu strain for this season.
Click to expand...
See link above- CDC has influenza numbers. COVID-19 != influenza different viruses altogether.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
JOOC, how effective are cloth masks compared to surgical mask in this regard? If surgical masks block, say, 95% of the virus, what percentage does a cloth mask block?
Click to expand...

I confess, I don’t have the numbers handy (and there is a fair bit of variability in what different studies have shown) but as I recall cloth masks tend to be less effective than surgical masks. Even surgical masks aren’t as good as 95%, though the N95s are rated for that.
 
steingar said:
The problems with studies like this is there are two variables you just can't measure. One is what things would look like if everyone actually obeyed the government, really locked down, masked up, and distanced. The other is if no one did. Since you can't measure these things such studies have in my opinion little utility.

@PeterNSteinmetz seems to have quite a dog in this hunt. One wonders why.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. That study ignored New Zealand and Vietnam where they were quite successful at containing the virus, for whatever reason.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Just a quick look shows they have been tracking influenza during the pandemic.
See here: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/pastreports.htm

See link above- CDC has influenza numbers. COVID-19 != influenza different viruses altogether.
Click to expand...

Of course. But if you look at the data from the CDC involving surveillance from outpatient visits, it does strongly suggest that the total ILIs (which includes COVID and other flus) in 2019-2020 season are similar to a bad prior flu season like 2017-2018.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
JOOC, how effective are cloth masks compared to surgical mask in this regard? If surgical masks block, say, 95% of the virus, what percentage does a cloth mask block?
Click to expand...

There is a recent study on this which suggested that the cloth masks are considerably less effective than surgical masks.

OTOH, we had the whole other thread on the DANMASK study which showed that when you recommend people wear surgical masks and they report they wore them, that such intervention does NOT significantly reduce the likelihood of them being infected by COVID-19. Perhaps a small effect, 15%, but that was very likely due to chance.

Putting these two together would strongly suggest that cloth masks would also fail to have a significant effect at reducing infection for the wearer.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
JOOC, how effective are cloth masks compared to surgical mask in this regard? If surgical masks block, say, 95% of the virus, what percentage does a cloth mask block?
Click to expand...
The Oxford study last spring/summer found about a 75% reduction in aerosol droplets when wearing a homemade mask (and also a much-smaller amount of protection from other people's aerosol droplets). That's not bad as a third line of defense (first line is minimising being around people from outside your household, and second line is maintaining 2m distance when you have to be). In a few months, enough people will be vaccinated to add another layer to those.

It's analogous to the military strategy of Defense in depth — no single defense has to be perfect, but if you stack enough of them, there's a good chance of the viral load losing steam before it gets to a person it can infect. So yes, cloth masks aren't a supposedly-impenetrable Maginot Line, but we all remember what happened to the Maginot Line.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Agree with this. That study ignored New Zealand and Vietnam where they were quite successful at containing the virus, for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

1. Wealthy islands in the middle of the Pacific with outstanding political leadership, stringent entry/exit requirements, and no land (or short-distance water) borders.
2. Authoritarian country that can jail anyone who doesn't follow guidelines.
 
catmandu said:
It is still available, without retraction watermark, on The Wayback Machine.
Click to expand...

There certainly is a strong contrast here between the links from the CDC above and the Briand seminar reported at this link.

The CDC estimates appear to depend on some established though complex model fitting.

To really make sense of this I think would require obtaining the datasets and analyzing it independently. May have to try that.
 
David Megginson said:
1. Wealthy islands in the middle of the Pacific with outstanding political leadership, stringent entry/exit requirements, and no land (or short-distance water) borders.
2. Authoritarian country that can jail anyone who doesn't follow guidelines.
Click to expand...
And what’s your point? They still managed to avoid the worst of the virus. The paper ignored those countries completely in their study.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Of course. But if you look at the data from the CDC involving surveillance from outpatient visits, it does strongly suggest that the total ILIs (which includes COVID and other flus) in 2019-2020 season are similar to a bad prior flu season like 2017-2018.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But influenza data is still being reported, in contrast to the earlier claim.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Perhaps. But influenza data is still being reported, in contrast to the earlier claim.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure what you mean by “the earlier claim”. But that data on the ILI surveillance so far suggests the 2020-2021 season will be on the low side of normal.
 
Alaska's department of health did a study and found:
"Anchorage's mask mandate and summer 'hunker down' orders helped reduce spread of COVID-19, state report finds"
https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/202...reduce-spread-of-covid-19-state-report-finds/
(which has a link to the study report itself)

Executive summary reads:
"This report summarizes changes in the COVID-19 epidemic in Anchorage following Emergency Orders (EOs) enacted to reduce virus transmission and thus prevent excess severe illnesses and deaths. Following an EO to wear facial covering (masks) in most public locations, self-reported mask use increased, and the growth of the epidemic slowed. After another EO that restricted the number of persons allowed in public venues and the subsequent closure of those venues, daily case counts declined and maintained a declining pattern while these EOs were in effect. The data presented here indicate that the local EOs, a mask mandate, and targeted restrictions on gathering locations in Anchorage appear to have contributed to decreasing SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates."

I can't comment on the details of the study... Just throwing in another data point from one locality.
 
The reality is the science is all over the place. There is not a definitive, clear and correct answer. I know a virologist that worked for the military developing vaccines for the military. One of his tasks was working with a large work group within the command to develop plans for supporting foreign governments in the event they had a pandemic. The conclusion regarding mask mandates... social cost far out weighed any benefits. Yet the Air Force apparently did a similar assessment and had the opposite conclusion.

At the end of the day it comes down to we all need to engage our representatives, express our concerns and hope like hell that our government is not operating with an agenda other than what’s best for us all. And recognize that it’s ultimately a politically driven policy decision that should be advised by science. Scientists are not political leaders. Blindly following them without consideration of the whole picture is naive.

I have attempted to share my thoughts without political bias and a violation of the ROC. If I failed at that my apologies to the group.
 
kath said:
Alaska's department of health did a study and found:
"Anchorage's mask mandate and summer 'hunker down' orders helped reduce spread of COVID-19, state report finds"
https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/202...reduce-spread-of-covid-19-state-report-finds/
(which has a link to the study report itself)

Executive summary reads:
"This report summarizes changes in the COVID-19 epidemic in Anchorage following Emergency Orders (EOs) enacted to reduce virus transmission and thus prevent excess severe illnesses and deaths. Following an EO to wear facial covering (masks) in most public locations, self-reported mask use increased, and the growth of the epidemic slowed. After another EO that restricted the number of persons allowed in public venues and the subsequent closure of those venues, daily case counts declined and maintained a declining pattern while these EOs were in effect. The data presented here indicate that the local EOs, a mask mandate, and targeted restrictions on gathering locations in Anchorage appear to have contributed to decreasing SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates."

I can't comment on the details of the study... Just throwing in another data point from one locality.
Click to expand...

Quick read suggests no comparison group and essentially is the post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument. I would have to check what the Lyu and Wehby published study said about Alaska.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top