COVID-19 Outbreak Information Updates (Reboot) [over 150.000,000 US cases (est.), 6,422,520 US hospitilizations, 1,148,691 US deaths.] (8 Viewers)

[brandon8283]

I can confirm that there's a certain 6A high school band on the Mississippi Gulf Coast who has officially had the entire band placed into quarantine as of yesterday.

This is not a small group, either. We're talking 175+ students last year (though virtual learners have cut this number significantly from last year).

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Arathrael]

The goalposts have changed. Lockdowns were to avoid overwhelming the ICU beds. Then it was to "bend the curve". Then it was to "avoid a second wave" and now, I'm not sure. Wait for a vaccine which some people insist will be "rushed" and politically pressured to be released?

My personal "solution" back in March was to tell everybody that a two week COMPLETE lockdown would start in two weeks. Send food and medicine FOR FREE to every household. Totally suspend payments on mortgages, rent, utilities etc for two months, the Government pick up the payroll for everybody for two months. Cut off travel. After two weeks of a total shut down, not a halfway shutdown, the virus is GONE. But, we have what we have, people do what they want. The economy is wrecked, lives are ruined and people are dead.

Our only real hope now is a safe, effective and EARLY vaccine. I believe it will happen, but people need to vote with their arms and get the shots.

I don't think that much has changed in terms of goalposts. Measures are still required to avoid overwhelming hospitals; if we don't do anything at all, that will still happen. Then, from the government point of view, there's the same goals there have always been, keep the economy running as much as possible, while suppressing the virus as necessary to enable that (along with preventing overwhelming hospitals, limiting deaths, etc.). (From the individual point of view, we might put more emphasis on the 'limiting death' part).

As for a two week lockdown, the principle is sound - a shorter stronger lockdown can be more effective than a longer weaker lockdown - but a two week total shutdown wouldn't have done it. The incubation period is thought to be up to 14 days, with a median of 4-5 days, which, particularly combined with asymptomatic carriers, means you'd inevitably still have a significant number of carriers even after a 14 day shutdown, and that's without even accounting for some level of transmission within the absolutely essential population that can't be locked down.

Even with a strict lockdown that's long enough to get the virus under control, it only takes the reintroduction of couple of carriers later to cause a new outbreak. For example, Iceland's had it pretty much under control, two French tourists break isolation and cause around a hundred new cases.

But, the countries that enacted strong enough and long enough lockdowns got the level of community transmission down to a point where comprehensive testing, tracing and isolating is both practical and viable for continued suppression of the virus, which reduces the risk to everyone and allows the economy to be reopened to a greater extent than countries that failed to do that.

The way I've been thinking of it is that there's three key factors:

The current levels of virus within the community.
The level of transmission opportunities within the community (broadly, the more opportunities there are for transmission, the more transmission will happen).
The effectiveness of testing, tracing and isolating in detecting and breaking transmission chains within the community.

So countries need measures to address all three. If they locked down hard and long enough to all but eliminate the virus, but then have poor testing, tracing and isolating measures and lax restrictions, they'll still end up back where they were fairly quickly as the virus takes hold and is rapidly spread again. Conversely, if their testing and tracing is relatively well resourced, but they didn't lock down long enough and lifted restrictions too rapidly, it can still be overwhelmed. So to give the UK as an example:

We didn't lock down long enough, or strongly enough, to bring the virus levels down as much as we could have.
We lifted measures too rapidly and actively encouraged transmission opportunities in some instances (e.g. the financial incentives to go to restaurants I mentioned).
People have become complacent, aren't taking what measures there are seriously, or are outright ignoring them resulting in even higher transmission levels.
Our testing, tracing, and isolating measures are overwhelmed and inadequate (partly as a result of the first three, partly because they're apparently being run by clowns).

Net result, transmission is high, which means we need more restrictions in order to reduce the transmission rates. The longer this lasts, the greater restrictions are needed, until eventually we'll be looking at lock downs again.

So while I don't think two weeks would have been adequate, earlier, stronger lockdowns would definitely have left us in a better position. Maybe we'll learn the lesson if we do have to do it again. Probably not.

 

[J.T.]

Arathrael,

I won't quote your whole post just above, but very good points. My two week severe lockdown was my initial thought, maybe three weeks would have been better. The testing rates have vastly improved. If football players and staff can get tested every day, there must be lots of tests available. Contact tracing is always going to be hard to do in the USA, but it is needed.

One of my main concerns is actually, will this ever end?

Will we ever get back to something like it used to be before?

I am starting to doubt that we will. I am ready to take a vaccine shot, I would actually have gotten into the trials if my personal family concerns would not have been a factor. Will "we" who have gotten the vaccine shots be "allowed" to resume "normal" activities at some point? Even before everyone else, or do "we" all have to stay locked up forever?

 

[DaveXA]

I don't think that much has changed in terms of goalposts. Measures are still required to avoid overwhelming hospitals; if we don't do anything at all, that will still happen. Then, from the government point of view, there's the same goals there have always been, keep the economy running as much as possible, while suppressing the virus as necessary to enable that (along with preventing overwhelming hospitals, limiting deaths, etc.). (From the individual point of view, we might put more emphasis on the 'limiting death' part).

As for a two week lockdown, the principle is sound - a shorter stronger lockdown can be more effective than a longer weaker lockdown - but a two week total shutdown wouldn't have done it. The incubation period is thought to be up to 14 days, with a median of 4-5 days, which, particularly combined with asymptomatic carriers, means you'd inevitably still have a significant number of carriers even after a 14 day shutdown, and that's without even accounting for some level of transmission within the absolutely essential population that can't be locked down.

Even with a strict lockdown that's long enough to get the virus under control, it only takes the reintroduction of couple of carriers later to cause a new outbreak. For example, Iceland's had it pretty much under control, two French tourists break isolation and cause around a hundred new cases.

But, the countries that enacted strong enough and long enough lockdowns got the level of community transmission down to a point where comprehensive testing, tracing and isolating is both practical and viable for continued suppression of the virus, which reduces the risk to everyone and allows the economy to be reopened to a greater extent than countries that failed to do that.

The way I've been thinking of it is that there's three key factors:

The current levels of virus within the community.
The level of transmission opportunities within the community (broadly, the more opportunities there are for transmission, the more transmission will happen).
The effectiveness of testing, tracing and isolating in detecting and breaking transmission chains within the community.

So countries need measures to address all three. If they locked down hard and long enough to all but eliminate the virus, but then have poor testing, tracing and isolating measures and lax restrictions, they'll still end up back where they were fairly quickly as the virus takes hold and is rapidly spread again. Conversely, if their testing and tracing is relatively well resourced, but they didn't lock down long enough and lifted restrictions too rapidly, it can still be overwhelmed. So to give the UK as an example:

We didn't lock down long enough, or strongly enough, to bring the virus levels down as much as we could have.
We lifted measures too rapidly and actively encouraged transmission opportunities in some instances (e.g. the financial incentives to go to restaurants I mentioned).
People have become complacent, aren't taking what measures there are seriously, or are outright ignoring them resulting in even higher transmission levels.
Our testing, tracing, and isolating measures are overwhelmed and inadequate (partly as a result of the first three, partly because they're apparently being run by clowns).

Net result, transmission is high, which means we need more restrictions in order to reduce the transmission rates. The longer this lasts, the greater restrictions are needed, until eventually we'll be looking at lock downs again.

So while I don't think two weeks would have been adequate, earlier, stronger lockdowns would definitely have left us in a better position. Maybe we'll learn the lesson if we do have to do it again. Probably not.

Yeah, in the old thread, and I'm not sure if I mentioned here as well, but I've stated more than once that I really believe we would have been better off with a strict month long lockdown than what actually transpired, which really wasn't a lockdown.

Whether we learn much from this, who knows?

 

[faceman]

Yeah, in the old thread, and I'm not sure if I mentioned here as well, but I've stated more than once that I really believe we would have been better off with a strict month long lockdown than what actually transpired, which really wasn't a lockdown.

Whether we learn much from this, who knows?

I agree. I mentioned in the old thread that my wife is from Taiwan. When the outbreaks from Wuhan were first reported,they went
into a 6 week true lockdown. The only essential personnel were health care workers,military,and police. Masks were mandated
nationwide. If you got caught not wearing one,it was a fine. If you got caught a second time,you were looking at jail/ It worked. I
don't believe that would work in the USA. We are just too impatient trying to get back to normal.

 

[superchuck500]

As we move toward the holiday season, again the glaring failure of the United States to roll out a broad-scale, rapid, reliable, and readily available coronavirus infection test is acutely relevant.

People will travel. Families will get together. The specter of these activities spreading the virus could be vastly diminished if, before heading off to grandma's for Thanksgiving or back home for Christmas, Americans could go get tested. Go down the day before you're supposed to leave, get your result that day, plan accordingly.

But no. The federal government has refused to undertake such an initiative. The states are either incapable or unwilling to do it themselves - and so we will continue to have (1) significant anxiety that could have been alleviated, (2) significant reduction in economic activity as more prudent people and those thoughtful of higher-risk people in their families or social circles will refuse to travel or get together when they may very well have done so with a clear test, and (3) the prospect for new upward trajectories in key metrics is enhanced, even almost assured.

So forking stupid that we're now nine months into knowing this outbreak existed, and six months in to knowing it was everywhere in the United States. This continues to be the biggest failure of American leadership.

 

[Charlie Brizzown]

Don't worry guys, we have a vaccine coming out in about a month. There's no need to make any drastic changes for such a short period of time.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

One of my main concerns is actually, will this ever end?

Will we ever get back to something like it used to be before?

i will argue that 'it' can't end until it actually begins
we have not had a full throated, full throttle approach to mitigating the virus
just a 100s of minimally effective patchwork approaches

also, i think 'back to like it was' should not/nor should it ever have been the focus - there were SO many things that needed to be improved that we could have/should have been focusing on from jump
and then want to get back to some sort of 'normal' is what stymies the work that we should be doing

 

[DaveXA]

As we move toward the holiday season, again the glaring failure of the United States to roll out a broad-scale, rapid, reliable, and readily available coronavirus infection test is acutely relevant.

People will travel. Families will get together. The specter of these activities spreading the virus could be vastly diminished if, before heading off to grandma's for Thanksgiving or back home for Christmas, Americans could go get tested. Go down the day before you're supposed to leave, get your result that day, plan accordingly.

But no. The federal government has refused to undertake such an initiative. The states are either incapable or unwilling to do it themselves - and so we will continue to have (1) significant anxiety that could have been alleviated, (2) significant reduction in economic activity as more prudent people and those thoughtful of higher-risk people in their families or social circles will refuse to travel or get together when they may very well have done so with a clear test, and (3) the prospect for new upward trajectories in key metrics is enhanced, even almost assured.

So forking stupid that we're now nine months into knowing this outbreak existed, and six months in to knowing it was everywhere in the United States. This continues to be the biggest failure of American leadership.

Well, I can say that this year, we're not traveling and we'll just Skype/FaceTime with family during the holidays. We'll go after all this mess is overwith.

 

[J.T.]

Don't worry guys, we have a vaccine coming out in about a month. There's no need to make any drastic changes for such a short period of time.

I know this is meant to be very lighthearted, but there will likely be one or more vaccines approved before the end of the year, quite possibly one in the next few weeks. This will be driven by the science, not anything else. The people in charge at the companies would have their heads of actual chopping blocks if they requested approval for a vaccine that their data showed to be dangerous or ineffective. The people in charge (staff scientists, etc) at the various Federal Agencies will not "approve" something that does not meet the standards of safety and efficacy. The efficacy rate they are looking for is between 50-60%. I am sure that will be scoffed at upon approval, but that is the standard the Scientists have set. Early next year, there will likely be one or more additional vaccines approved. The US Government has secured, through VERY early production contracts, hundreds of millions of doses of these vaccines, which will be available, starting soon after approval. In regard to vaccine purchases and future availability upon approval, the USA is FAR ahead of the rest of the World. It is not even close. The USA (Federal Government) has production contracts in place to vaccinate the entire population more than once, when you add it up over the various vaccine candidates. More than one vaccine is actually a great thing because some people will respond better to certain types of vaccines and more types of vaccines can be produced in multiple facilities at the same time. The USA has also bought up a massive number of glass vials and syringes. Most of this is something that does not get the headlines, because many other actions or inactions are just so obvious. On this front (vaccine testing and funding of production, future roll out, etc), the US Federal Government is actually doing a great job. It would be nice if this effort was supported by all of our leaders.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[StudioSaint]

Wonder why White House is talking about this.

Trump claims White House can overrule FDA's attempt to toughen guidelines for coronavirus vaccine

President Donald Trump claimed Wednesday that the White House could override the US Food and Drug Administration if the agency released tougher standards for the authorization of a Covid-19 vaccine, casting such a move as "political."

www.cnn.com

 

[superchuck500]

I know this is meant to be very lighthearted, but there will likely be one or more vaccines approved before the end of the year, quite possibly one in the next few weeks. This will be driven by the science, not anything else. The people in charge at the companies would have their heads of actual chopping blocks if they requested approval for a vaccine that their data showed to be dangerous or ineffective. The people in charge (staff scientists, etc) at the various Federal Agencies will not "approve" something that does not meet the standards of safety and efficacy. The efficacy rate they are looking for is between 50-60%. I am sure that will be scoffed at upon approval, but that is the standard the Scientists have set. Early next year, there will likely be one or more additional vaccines approved. The US Government has secured, through VERY early production contracts, hundreds of millions of doses of these vaccines, which will be available, starting soon after approval. In regard to vaccine purchases and future availability upon approval, the USA is FAR ahead of the rest of the World. It is not even close. The USA (Federal Government) has production contracts in place to vaccinate the entire population more than once, when you add it up over the various vaccine candidates. More than one vaccine is actually a great thing because some people will respond better to certain types of vaccines and more types of vaccines can be produced in multiple facilities at the same time. The USA has also bought up a massive number of glass vials and syringes. Most of this is something that does not get the headlines, because many other actions or inactions are just so obvious. On this front (vaccine testing and funding of production, future roll out, etc), the US Federal Government is actually doing a great job. It would be nice if this effort was supported by all of our leaders.

What's your over/under date on when a typical American adult with health insurance and no conditions that make him or her a priority case in an average locality can get a vaccine?

 

[J.T.]

Interesting Vaccine news and observations.

There has been an overall decrease in the rates of infection in the last few weeks in the USA, the numbers are very hard to quantify in the extreme short term, but a general downward trend, which is "good" news. One of the impacts of this is that the vaccine study groups will now have people less likely to be exposed to the virus, so they will have to "wait" for some results (positive cases in the placebo group is the "expected" or "hoped for" result, but nobody wants anybody to actually get the virus) in some of the trials, especially in the Pfizer and Moderna trials which are centered in the USA. The trend down (I know it is a hoped for trend down and hard to quantify) may delay the efficacy numbers on the these earliest vaccine companies data.

Another early Phase 3 trial is now just underway in the UK and will start in the USA in October. This is the vaccine candidate from Novavax. It is just starting out in the UK with 10,000 participants and will have 30,000 in the USA. The recent "surge" in cases in the UK could lead to earlier than otherwise expected efficacy data on their vaccine. This is all very perverse when you think about it, the higher the infection rate, the earlier you would expect to get data from a vaccine trial. A lowering of the overall infection rate is good overall, but bad for vaccine data.

"Novavax Inc. said Thursday it has started a final-stage, 10,000-person study of its experimental Covid-19 vaccine in the U.K., where a recent surge in cases could hasten an answer about whether the inoculation safely protects people from the new coronavirus."

"Novavax still plans to test its vaccine in a Phase 3 trial in the U.S. with up to 30,000 subjects, which could start in October, said Gregory Glenn, Novavax’s president of research and development.

“The U.K. trial is a different shot on goal,” Dr. Glenn said in an interview. “They look like they are going to have a big surge in disease.”

Covid-19 Vaccine From Novavax Begins Phase 3 Trial in U.K.

The company said it has started a final-stage, 10,000-person study of its experimental Covid-19 vaccine in the U.K.

www.wsj.com