To mask or not to mask?

[Juliet Hotel]

I’m going with no, we let drunk drivers out the next day, they’re driving immediately again, and we allow numerous infractions before we actually restrict their actions.

We never require proof of true rehabilitation or abstinence. The process takes years.

We place the functional alcoholics right to work well above the welfare of the general public ALL the time. If there’s a “core value”, that’s certainly it.

But yes, they’re identical in that on exceedingly rare occasion, both kill others.

So it’s a pretty poor example. And wasn’t what was asked anyway. The question asked was can a Governor of their own accord, decide DUI is a big enough problem to declare it an “emergency” and close the liquor stores without legislative oversight or approval?

Well according what google tells me there were about 10,500 fatalities from drunk driving in 2018. Let's call it 10,000 and lets ignore population density and call it 200 deaths per state per year. If a state suddenly found they had more than 200 drunk driving induced deaths in less than a week then yes, I would expect a governor might decide to take immediate action and do something as drastic as ordering all sales of alcohol to cease immediately pending further action or investigation.

 

[Palmpilot]

you do realize....although they were not "meant" for reuse...the lack there of has forced hospitals to clean and reuse their equipment.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the virus remains infective for a considerably shorter time on cardboard than it does on most non-porous materials. Since N95 masks are porous, I'm thinking that maybe it would be sufficient to let each mask sit around for a few days before reuse, at least for this particular bug.
Also, I saw a report from one hospital in which personnel were keeping their used masks in paper bags with their names written on them. (Whether they had some way of cleaning them, I don't know.)

Disclaimer: I have no expertise in such matters.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

A friend of the family...their daughter works in a nursing home. She and a bunch of her coworkers tested positive. Apparently they were reusing masks and wearing rain coats .....and something went wrong. They obviously weren't cleaning them properly or not properly fitted.

30 of the 40 residents on her wing were positive for COVID.

 

[Everskyward]

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the virus remains infective for a considerably shorter time on cardboard than it does on most non-porous materials. Since N95 masks are porous, I'm thinking that maybe it would be sufficient to let each mask sit around for a few days before reuse, at least for this particular bug.
Also, I saw a report from one hospital in which personnel were keeping their used masks in paper bags with their names written on them. (Whether they had some way of cleaning them, I don't know.)

Disclaimer: I have no expertise in such matters.

I have read some articles about how to clean masks and this has been the advice for masks you can't wash. They say you can leave them in a paper (not plastic) bag for 72 hours. I just hang them somewhere that I am not going to touch in the interim.

 

[Palmpilot]

I have read some articles about how to clean masks and this has been the advice for masks you can't wash. They say you can leave them in a paper (not plastic) bag for 72 hours. I just hang them somewhere that I am not going to touch in the interim.

And now that reusing bags is no longer required or permitted in grocery stores, I have a surplus of them around the house. (I have come to the realization that the fact that grocery bags are much larger than needed for the purpose really doesn't matter.)

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

That level of protection is a new mask and disposal after each sojourn.
If you have done the research you state you would know first that n95 is not panacea but one piece of the puzzle.
Second, the cost at 15 each in bulk would consume a very significant percentage of the income for those who can least afford it.
While a simple cloth mask is reusable and costs a couple bucks.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

Yes, “adequate supply” would mean at a price affordable to people. Respirators would likely be better protection since they cover the eyes as well. We are a ways from that level of availability.

I am actually not sure this is the way it will resolve though. My observation is that people are just decreasing mask usage, primarily their cloth masks, significantly. I suspect people are just getting fed up with whole situation and a majority won’t worry about this level of risk in daily life.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

A friend of the family...their daughter works in a nursing home. She and a bunch of her coworkers tested positive. Apparently they were reusing masks and wearing rain coats .....and something went wrong. They obviously weren't cleaning them properly or not properly fitted.

30 of the 40 residents on her wing were positive for COVID.

If you are a care worker, I suspect it is very difficult to not be infected with SARS Cov-2 if you have daily exposure. Eventually something will go wrong or simply overwhelm the barriers in the course of several months given the number of cases.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

thank you for that info Peter.....

 

[tspear]

Yes, “adequate supply” would mean at a price affordable to people. Respirators would likely be better protection since they cover the eyes as well. We are a ways from that level of availability.

I am actually not sure this is the way it will resolve though. My observation is that people are just decreasing mask usage, primarily their cloth masks, significantly. I suspect people are just getting fed up with whole situation and a majority won’t worry about this level of risk in daily life.

There are currently a few ways we can protect those who are vulnerable.
1. everyone where a cloth mask or better in public.
2. all those who are vulnerable get full bore PPE.
3. massive testing and tracing so anyone who is sick is quickly quarantined and does not go near the vulnerable.

Considering the leadership, you can judge which one of the above three is most likely to be able to implement.

Tim

 

[Jeff Oslick]

There are currently a few ways we can protect those who are vulnerable.
1. everyone where a cloth mask or better in public.
2. all those who are vulnerable get full bore PPE.
3. massive testing and tracing so anyone who is sick is quickly quarantined and does not go near the vulnerable.

You missed the most important - readily accessibly hand washing stations.

 

[tspear]

If you are a care worker, I suspect it is very difficult to not be infected with SARS Cov-2 if you have daily exposure. Eventually something will go wrong or simply overwhelm the barriers in the course of several months given the number of cases.

Well I disagree. I have many family friends in the medical field; mostly nurses and few docs. A fair number of them work in the COVID wings of hospitals. Not one has tested positive for COVID-19; if the hospital does not provide PPE; family and friends have been buying it for them (connections matter, now only if I could find one that wants to buy in bulk!).

Tim

 

[tspear]

You missed the most important - readily accessibly hand washing stations.

Washing hands helps against cross contamination only.
Does not help when you breathe in airsols or droplets. Or get contaminated through the eyeball (recent theory by virologist).

Tim

 

[Palmpilot]

Washing hands helps against cross contamination only.
Does not help when you breathe in airsols or droplets. Or get contaminated through the eyeball (recent theory by virologist).

Tim

Wouldn't hand-washing help when eating finger food, such as sandwiches, cookies, or nuts?

 

[Tantalum]

If you are a care worker, I suspect it is very difficult to not be infected with SARS Cov-2 if you have daily exposure. Eventually something will go wrong or simply overwhelm the barriers in the course of several months given the number of cases.

I sure hope not.. my sister is a doctor working the COVID ward at a hospital in the north east.. so far so good. She's got some (but limited) PPE to use, and they're all exercising the best efforts to not contract it, and not spread it

It's not radiation.. it's basic hygiene

1 minute in, or watch the whole thing if you like the show. Very apropos

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

There are currently a few ways we can protect those who are vulnerable.
1. everyone where a cloth mask or better in public.

Considering the leadership, you can judge which one of the above three is most likely to be able to implement.

Tim

I would agree if this were changed to "try and protect those who are vulnerable".

As I have discussed here at some length, the recommendations to wear cloth masks in public to slow the spread of Covid-19 are not supported by a consensus of scientific opinion. Reviews of the scientific literature on this are mixed at best and provide a poor argument that it will help. The empirical evidence they slow the spread is almost non-existent. Some experts in the field are concerned that the use of cloth masks could be counter-productive.

This lack of consensus in the scientific community is reflected in the divided recommendations by CDC and the WHO.

Personally I don't hold out much hope that politicians will ever be making policy decisions guided by rational thought.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Well I disagree. I have many family friends in the medical field; mostly nurses and few docs. A fair number of them work in the COVID wings of hospitals. Not one has tested positive for COVID-19;

I do wish the best for all health care worker and especially those of my correspondents here. Appears one estimate of the rate so far is about 6% (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...covid-19-worldwide-nurses-group-idUSKBN22I1XH). That is not related to the dose, in terms of how much time they are spending.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I would agree if this were changed to "try and protect those who are vulnerable".

As I have discussed here at some length, the recommendations to wear cloth masks in public to slow the spread of Covid-19 are not supported by a consensus of scientific opinion. Reviews of the scientific literature on this are mixed at best and provide a poor argument that it will help. The empirical evidence they slow the spread is almost non-existent. Some experts in the field are concerned that the use of cloth masks could be counter-productive.

This lack of consensus in the scientific community is reflected in the divided recommendations by CDC and the WHO.

Personally I don't hold out much hope that politicians will ever be making policy decisions guided by rational thought.

9 outta 10 docs would not agree with that.

COVID is an airborne virus....that spreads thru the "air" and lingers or floats in the air for hours. Masks do help....especially ones that "filter" well like the N95 kind.

Hand washing is good....but not the main way it's transmitted.

Note the study performed in Boston where one gal infected almost 100 folks, over 60% in attendance, at a conference. She had no physical contact with them...no hand shaking. But, she was one of the "speakers"/presenters.

https://www.biospace.com/article/approximately-100-covid-19-cases-stem-from-biogen-meeting/

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

9 outta 10 docs would not agree with that.

COVID is an airborne virus....that spreads thru the "air" and lingers or floats in the air for hours. Masks do help....especially ones that "filter" well like the N95 kind.

I am discussing the use of the cloth masks by the public. Have you read the 4 reviews on this question? Let me know if you want me to repost the links.

There are a lot of studies that bear on this subject though very little actual empirical data. To start to understand them all, I really do think it is best to read the reviews first. You will find they are basically evenly split on the public health recommendation for wearing cloth masks by the public (which would sort of correspond to a 5 out of 10). Short of that, just look at the CDC versus the World Health Organization recommendations, which are on opposite sides of that recommendation. Beyond that, to look at primary data and studies, one really has to go and essentially perform a review, that is, locate all the primary data, read and understand it, then try and critically evaluate and synthesize the findings. Looking at just one or another primary study is not able to resolve the issue because the question is not that simple.

Frankly, I don't think any amount of re-review is likely to change this lack of consensus. What is needed is more empirical data on the use of the cloth masks by the public and its effect on the spread of disease.

 

[Bell206]

There are currently a few ways we can protect those who are vulnerable.
1. everyone where a cloth mask or better in public.
2. all those who are vulnerable get full bore PPE.
3. massive testing and tracing so anyone who is sick is quickly quarantined and does not go near the vulnerable.

Considering only 15-20% of a COVID infections require advanced medical care, why not require only those in this vulnerable group to wear masks and/or full PPE plus be quarantined instead of the 80% who are not affected? There's plenty of data out there that describes who is in this 20% group which can include anyone who even "thinks" they are vulnerable. This would more efficiently redirect those items listed in your #1 and reduce the testing requirements in #3 to only those who interact with this vulnerable group. And it also moves herd immunity forward. But most importantly it puts the onus to use masks, PPE, and remain locked down on those who have the most to lose via COVID vs the population in general.

 

[Winged_Splinter]

I have a trip planned and booked for the end of August. I'm hoping the face mask policy is over by then. I received an email today from Delta saying they are requiring face masks on your entire trip to your destination, the exemptions include children, and when you are having a meal. So apparently you are immune from the virus as long as you are eating something. Then there is the information about wearing them through high traffic areas like security lines. Guess the days of being harassed for wearing a mask of some sort through security are over.

 

[murphey]

I am discussing the use of the cloth masks by the public. Have you read the 4 reviews on this question? Let me know if you want me to repost the links.

There are a lot of studies that bear on this subject though very little actual empirical data. To start to understand them all, I really do think it is best to read the reviews first. You will find they are basically evenly split on the public health recommendation for wearing cloth masks by the public (which would sort of correspond to a 5 out of 10). Short of that, just look at the CDC versus the World Health Organization recommendations, which are on opposite sides of that recommendation. Beyond that, to look at primary data and studies, one really has to go and essentially perform a review, that is, locate all the primary data, read and understand it, then try and critically evaluate and synthesize the findings. Looking at just one or another primary study is not able to resolve the issue because the question is not that simple.

Frankly, I don't think any amount of re-review is likely to change this lack of consensus. What is needed is more empirical data on the use of the cloth masks by the public and its effect on the spread of disease.

'Tis better to err on the side of caution......

However, 60-90 days of limited studies is not adequate or sufficient to formulate a definitive decision on mask or not. Let's see what happens in the next 6 months. Not only that, but are there control groups and how are the control groups defined in order to validate the numbers and recommendations.

To quote Twain....There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

[RJM62]

9 outta 10 docs would not agree with that.

COVID is an airborne virus....that spreads thru the "air" and lingers or floats in the air for hours. Masks do help....especially ones that "filter" well like the N95 kind.

Hand washing is good....but not the main way it's transmitted.

Note the study performed in Boston where one gal infected almost 100 folks, over 60% in attendance, at a conference. She had no physical contact with them...no hand shaking. But, she was one of the "speakers"/presenters.

https://www.biospace.com/article/approximately-100-covid-19-cases-stem-from-biogen-meeting/

Nothing in the article precludes contact transmission. The person shedding pathogen doesn't have to touch you. They merely have to touch something that you touch afterwards.

Exhaled droplets fall to the floor quickly, typically within seconds. Aerosolized virus can hang and remain in the air for, at most, two or three hours (and probably much less than that in buildings with adequate HVAC systems). But the virus can remain alive on surfaces for several days.

I've already stated my position about masks (basically, skeptical compliance) several times, so this isn't an argument against masks. My argument is against near-obsessive emphasis being paid to masks, probably because of their visibility, to the exclusion of other precautions. Except in densely-crowded situations, I believe that contact transmission is a greater risk to most people than inhalation transmission.

Rich

 

[Brad Z]

No mask...the world has over 7 billion people and as of today the numbers are 2,712 deaths and there have been 80,427 cases world wide. This is hardly a huge issue as far as Im concerned but then again Im just a lowly blue collar pilot.

This comment didn't age well.

What you’re missing is yet unknown potential of this. It may not live up to the hype. And I certainly hope it wouldn’t. And it’s not a pandemic yet. Panic is obviously premature and is never really the answer. But dismissing it based on only 2700 deaths and not being as bad as flu is also silly

if, however, it becomes pandemic with infection rates even 1/100 that of a flu, it will not only cause quite a lot of direct suffering, but massive economic impact on our connected world.

yeah that...

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Nothing in the article precludes contact transmission. The person shedding pathogen doesn't have to touch you. They merely have to touch something that you touch afterwards.

Exhaled droplets fall to the floor quickly, typically within seconds. Aerosolized virus can hang and remain in the air for, at most, two or three hours (and probably much less than that in buildings with adequate HVAC systems). But the virus can remain alive on surfaces for several days.

I've already stated my position about masks (basically, skeptical compliance) several times, so this isn't an argument against masks. My argument is against near-obsessive emphasis being paid to masks, probably because of their visibility, to the exclusion of other precautions. Except in densely-crowded situations, I believe that contact transmission is a greater risk to most people than inhalation transmission.

Rich

did you read the article Iink posted? How do you think +100 persons were infected at a Biogen conference? Large room with almost 200 in attendance and more than half infected.....with a contagious speaker?

 

[denverpilot]

Note the study performed in Boston where one gal infected almost 100 folks, over 60% in attendance, at a conference. She had no physical contact with them...no hand shaking. But, she was one of the "speakers"/presenters.

https://www.biospace.com/article/approximately-100-covid-19-cases-stem-from-biogen-meeting/

Not being tooooo skeptical of their report, but...

If they didn’t test everyone in attendance up front... technically they don’t know she was the only carrier present.

Just a minor point. I’d generally say it was her.

Also they don’t discuss unless I missed it, what she *touched* in the environment. If everybody came through the same entrance door...

Just mentioning it because it’s not a “nailed down” proof that people caught it from the air.

I’m always interested in what the HVAC system is like in the outbreak buildings, also. With gravity tending to be a law, and all...

A speaker at a podium has a little height on the crowd, but if airborne, something physical has to carry it to the back row...

There’s another minor report running around the choral music community about how singers and others using “vocal projection” technique, deep breaths, push from the diaphragm, eject an enormously higher level of micro droplets and at a higher speed from their mouth.

Choral music is probably screwed for a long time.

(And yes the chorus in Washington state who attempted a rehearsal way back when this was starting and had an enormous infection rate and a number of elderly deaths... tragic. We weren’t even to the “wear masks” stage. They didn’t touch each other’s music, didn’t touch each other, sanitizer abounded... that one was risers standing fairly close to each other and airborne transmission for sure. Which is why I’m not really doubting this Boston thing, just pointing out it does have some flaws.)

 

[Tantalum]

the exemptions include children

this part I don't understand either.. especially if children are far less likely to be hygienic in general, especially when it comes to covering their mouth when they cough, and (from what I understand) more likely to asymptomatically spread it..

and when you are having a meal. So apparently you are immune from the virus as long as you are eating something

hyperbole perhaps, but it's not that you can't get sick when you are eating, but that you can't eat when you're wearing a mask

Are that many people honestly interested in breathing in what other people are breathing out? Clothes are also required to be worn but we're not up in arms over that. The mask thing doesn't bother me, nor do I see it as some of kind of constitutional affront to our rights. When someone does a little crop dusting on a plane after a heavy bean burrito all the aisles back and forth for several rows smell like A$$... you're literally inhaling little tiny bits of A$$ particles.. and, usually, people smell it and breath through their shirt or try to cover their mouth somehow, IE, your body saying "that's disgusting, we need some extra filtration please" <- I bet if coronavirus droplets had an odor people would be much more willing to wear a mask

There are many things with this pandemic that don't make sense.. *MANY*, but asking people to wash their hands and wear a mask when they're near someone else doesn't seem outlandish

A car rental shop closing at 3 instead of 5, that doesn't make sense.. a beach being open from 2-6 doesn't make sense.. but asking people to wear a mask when they're near a crowded place with other people.. what's wrong with that?

Plus, even if it's not likely to kill you, who wants to be sick with flu like (or often worse) symptoms for 2-6 weeks. No thanks.

 

[denverpilot]

Considering only 15-20% of a COVID infections require advanced medical care...

Just checking. Citation on that?

Karen’s hospital anecdotally isn’t seeing anywhere near that. Maybe 10%. Maybe. The vast majority are monitored for O2 levels and if stable, tossed. Go home and quarantine. Some percentage of that tossed number get a script for an O2 bottle.

However, any number collected by a hospital is only the people who sought care. There’s a massive number who simply quarantine at home that lowers the “number who need advanced care” by what is starting to look like orders of magnitude.

So the statement really has to be ...

“Out of those who sought medical care, X% needed advanced medical care.”

Not “out of those infected”.

I just have a red flag for the “infected” word after lots of reading. We won’t know that number in any bulk accuracy until September at the very very earliest. Probably later.

 

[NHWannabe]

There are currently a few ways we can protect those who are vulnerable.
1. everyone where a cloth mask or better in public.
2. all those who are vulnerable get full bore PPE.
3. massive testing and tracing so anyone who is sick is quickly quarantined and does not go near the vulnerable.

Considering the leadership, you can judge which one of the above three is most likely to be able to implement.

Tim

Appears from Governor Fredo's comments that NY'ers are not getting tested, capacity>>>>>volume.

https://www.newsday.com/news/health...onavirus-beaches-testing-gov-cuomo-1.44718400

 

[denverpilot]

Appears from Governor Fredo's comments that NY'ers are not getting tested, capacity>>>>>volume.

https://www.newsday.com/news/health...onavirus-beaches-testing-gov-cuomo-1.44718400

Our talking heads patted themselves on the back and said we have enough tests now for anybody with symptoms.

I have to assume this was a rural problem here, because Karen’s hospital never had any problems with testing after the first week or two.

The assumption comes from the other talking head announcement that the rural county to my southeast even more rural than mine, announced a day before that they finally have tests of any sort. Which came through NextDoor due to our physical proximity to them.

There’s only a few hundred people out there, anyway.

Okay exaggerating... a few thousand.

 

[RJM62]

did you read the article Iink posted? How do you think +100 persons were infected at a Biogen conference? Large room with almost 200 in attendance and more than half infected.....with a contagious speaker?

Did you read the article?

Nothing in the article states that the speaker was the source of the others' infections.

Nothing in the article states that the speaker was female, nor anything else about the speaker.

Nothing in the article states that all of the people infected were at the meeting. (That may be the case, but the article states only that the infections were "linked to" the meeting, which is vague. It may include spouses of attendees, etc.)

Nothing in the article states that there was no hand-shaking or physical contact at the meeting, as you asserted in your previous post.

Nothing in the article mentioned the physical size of the room, the spacing of chairs and tables, etc.

Nothing in the article mentioned a suspected mode of transmission.

The article doesn't mention whether there were meals or refreshments served. An infected waiter or busboy could just as easily have been the source of infection by respiratory and/or contact spread, even if nothing was served except water. (The ice machine is actually the most dangerous machine in a commercial kitchen in terms of pathogens. The dishwasher is a close second.)

I suspect you have some other knowledge about this conference or posted a different link than the one you meant to, because the linked article simply does not back up your assertions in any way.

Rich

 

[RJM62]

Appears from Governor Fredo's comments that NY'ers are not getting tested, capacity>>>>>volume.

https://www.newsday.com/news/health...onavirus-beaches-testing-gov-cuomo-1.44718400

Yeah, he basically expanded the eligibility to include anyone who's set foot out of their homes.

Last I checked, however, he still hasn't made it clear who will pay for the tests. That alone may be turning people off. (It certainly turns me off.)

The other problem is that people who are not feeling sick don't want to risk being quarantined if they happen to test positive. For me, it wouldn't be a big deal because I live alone, work at home, have about six months' income in fully-liquid savings accounts, and could easily live for four to six weeks on the provisions I already have stored. But for someone coming off two months of lockdown already, who has a family, and who has to actually go somewhere to work, I can understand the reluctance.

I've called my county health department and told them to call me if they need bodies to test to keep their numbers up. I have no problem with the county testing me. But I want as little as possible to do with state government.

Rich

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

'Tis better to err on the side of caution......

As a general principle I certainly agree, and there are experts on this who argue precisely the precautionary principle should apply. Then on the other hand there are experts in about equal numbers who argue that making a public request to wear cloth masks is actually not the cautious thing to do at all and may cause harm. That's part of the reason there is the split between the recommendations of the CDC and the WHO and the scientific reviews are equally mixed.

Definitely agree that more empirical data on the actual effect of making such a recommendation will help.

To quote Twain....There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Haha. There we will likely disagree. Since I work on statistical analysis of neural data for a living I naturally have a different view. Probability and statistics are what we use to properly describe a world in which most things are probabilistic. (Though I do understand how they can be used in very misleading ways -- especially in public policy.)

 

[Bell206]

Citation on that?

Here's one....
"For COVID-19, data to date suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe infection, requiring oxygen and 5% are critical infections, requiring ventilation."
https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...0306-sitrep-46-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=96b04adf_2

 

[NHWannabe]

We all knew they were sandbagging, not even close to Wuhan.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-china-s-northeast-thrown-back-under-lockdown

 

[denverpilot]

Here's one....
"For COVID-19, data to date suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe infection, requiring oxygen and 5% are critical infections, requiring ventilation."
https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...0306-sitrep-46-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=96b04adf_2

Still ... how are they counting “infections” at such low worldwide testing rates, and most places having near zero testing of anyone asymptomatic?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

There are many things with this pandemic that don't make sense.. *MANY*, but asking people to wash their hands and wear a mask when they're near someone else doesn't seem outlandish

A car rental shop closing at 3 instead of 5, that doesn't make sense.. a beach being open from 2-6 doesn't make sense.. but asking people to wear a mask when they're near a crowded place with other people.. what's wrong with that?

I think the people that don't like them have a number of objections. Firstly, they are uncomfortable. Secondly, it is for an uncertain benefit -- some experts think a public recommendation for everyone to wear cloth masks might actually do harm. Finally, this is the USA. If the government says everyone has to do something, no doubt there will be those that refuse if possible. Personally I sort of like that independent streak, but it does lead to some crazy behavior at times.

 

[Bell206]

Still ... how are they counting “infections” at such low worldwide testing rates, and most places having near zero testing of anyone asymptomatic?

You'll have to ask those who write the reports. But there are numerous references to the 80%/20% ratio on infections from a wide range of legit sources which has been consistant since February. The report I posted was the easiest to get to where I'm located at the moment.

 

[bdtaz]

One data point for AZ: https://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/...se-epidemiology/covid-19/dashboards/index.php

Roughly 12% of identified cases are hospitalized.

The conservative estimates I've seen have estimated cases being nominally 10X identified cases so conservatively 1.2% of all cases are hospitalized.

 

[RJM62]

You'll have to ask those who write the reports. But there are numerous references to the 80%/20% ratio on infections from a wide range of legit sources which has been consistant since February. The report I posted was the easiest to get to where I'm located at the moment.

One data point for AZ: https://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/...se-epidemiology/covid-19/dashboards/index.php

Roughly 12% of identified cases are hospitalized.

The conservative estimates I've seen have estimated cases being nominally 10X identified cases so conservatively 1.2% of all cases are hospitalized.

This is another statistic that's basically meaningless absent sociological, demographic, and even chronological context.

It's kind of like counting the death numbers as part of the conditions for reopening. For that purpose, who cares when people died? It's when they were infected that matters.

Rich

 

[bdtaz]

Exactly

Pretty easy to find data that supports a "Hospitalization rate" from well under 1% to more than 20%.

The basic metrics bantered around in the media for re-opening are cases and deaths.

Both of of these metrics have had their definitions altered considerably over the past month or so.

Two months ago a "Covid death" required a positive PCR test indicating an active virus.

A "Covid case" was basically the same.

Cases now include a confirmed serological or PCR test or a subjective "No alternative more likely diagnosis ". https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/case-definition/2020/

Deaths also now do not require a positive lab test.

So "cases" and "deaths" reported in the news might be anything depending on where the data comes from.