Corona Virus 2019-nCoV

[Seattle]

In the U.S. there is currently a big difference between the cities with higher densities and lower densities. It's hard to get away from people if you live and work in NYC. If you live in Seattle (for example) it's easy to maintain some spacing.

My best friend is a doctor in a hospital in an area just outside of the Seattle area. She says that Covid-19 really has had little effect in her working life. Her hospital is not crowded at all, there are a few Covid-19 cases and that's about it. There was even some talk of some of the doctors getting fewer hours later in the summer if things stay this quiet (since most elective surgeries have been postponed.

Most stores that are open around here have spacing requirements that everyone follows and most people wear a mask if for no other reason (since they don't do all that much) than to keep everyone else calm.

The new case numbers have gone down although not as much as one would hope probably because as rules start to relax some people are taking advantage of that. I expect there will be a learning curve regarding what to do as the rules relax.

There have been no shortages in my grocery store throughout all of this except for the first few weeks with toilet paper and certain other hoarding items.

Unemployment is going to be an issue nationwide but most that are unemployed are being compensated better than they have ever been compensated before. It's mainly the lower skill jobs that are being lost. That's not good but just to put things in perspective, most people with any kind of education or skill aren't going to be unemployed for long and most are still employed.

I know someone who works in a warehouse for Outdoor Research (like REI) and he still has a job. Currently it sucks to work in a restaurant, bar, barbershop or nail salon.

It we are going to have all of the Covid-19 threads, it would be less annoying to have a little balance in what is posted.

 

[exchemist]

In the U.S. there is currently a big difference between the cities with higher densities and lower densities. It's hard to get away from people if you live and work in NYC. If you live in Seattle (for example) it's easy to maintain some spacing.

My best friend is a doctor in a hospital in an area just outside of the Seattle area. She says that Covid-19 really has had little effect in her working life. Her hospital is not crowded at all, there are a few Covid-19 cases and that's about it. There was even some talk of some of the doctors getting fewer hours later in the summer if things stay this quiet (since most elective surgeries have been postponed.

Most stores that are open around here have spacing requirements that everyone follows and most people wear a mask if for no other reason (since they don't do all that much) than to keep everyone else calm.

The new case numbers have gone down although not as much as one would hope probably because as rules start to relax some people are taking advantage of that. I expect there will be a learning curve regarding what to do as the rules relax.

There have been no shortages in my grocery store throughout all of this except for the first few weeks with toilet paper and certain other hoarding items.

Unemployment is going to be an issue nationwide but most that are unemployed are being compensated better than they have ever been compensated before. It's mainly the lower skill jobs that are being lost. That's not good but just to put things in perspective, most people with any kind of education or skill aren't going to be unemployed for long and most are still employed.

I know someone who works in a warehouse for Outdoor Research (like REI) and he still has a job. Currently it sucks to work in a restaurant, bar, barbershop or nail salon.

It we are going to have all of the Covid-19 threads, it would be less annoying to have a little balance in what is posted.

I find this very interesting. We have seen relatively little on how R varies as a function of the density of living.

An E. Coast city built for the era of the horse, that relies on high density accommodation and crowded public transport, could have an R number of 3, close to London or Paris, but a place like Seattle could have a far lower R number, which can perhaps be kept below 1 with relatively few control measures. At any rate, some of the experience of Asia and Europe may not be directly applicable in the Western US. We are going to find out.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You can go on about contract tracing all you want, but the UK, USA, and other countries, have long since been past the point where that became worthwhile.
QQ, until you realise that NZ and Australia are in a different situation to the the UK, USA, Europe, etc, you're simply talking your usual garbage. Actions taken by NZ and Australia made sense for the situation they were in - where contract tracing makes all the difference. Comparing that to countries that probably had more infectious people than anyone realised even before their first case was identified, where contract tracing has been of little use once the cases got to a certain level, and where a handful of additional infected people will have made next to no difference to the numbers, the rates, the timescale... well, making comparisons and judging actions, as you are doing, is just laughable.
The UK rate is dropping, and as such it now becomes sensible - not half-hearted - to impose a strict quarantine on new arrivals, as new cases brought in would otherwise have an impact. Contact tracing is now becoming sensible again as well, although a better means still needs to be developed.
It makes sense to ease restrictions in a coordinated and controlled manner, so as not to risk the infection rate rising from what at the moment is a manageable level. Because that is the main difference between some countries and others: some are in the position where they have minimal cases, and their priority is to stop the spread, kill off the virus... and for others they are in the position where they are trying to reduce the rate of spread such that the health service can manage.
If you compare the actions of one group with the other, and judge out of context, then you're just opening yourself to ridicule.

You seem to think that we are that different.
The only difference is in the numbers not the intent.
My comment originally was that I was surprised that the UK borders were not closed, and you decided in an over defensiveness manner to ridicule my thoughts.
Of course it makes sense to restrict your borders today.
Better late than never.
All the delay has achieved is elongate the economic hit and higher death rates.

The science will tell you that if you don't restrict your borders now you will inevitably have to later...and the economic clock is ticking all the time...You either quarantine properly or you will be playing Russian Roulette with this thing until you do.
The only difference (UK, AU and NZ) is that we wanted to get this over with with the least amount of damage in the shortest possible time. Even so, we have taken a massive hit to our economy and longer term social freedoms.

( I believe today we find out from the Aust. Treasury just how bad we have been hit... and even then it will probably be an overly optimistic statement)
Hospitality, tourism and international education have virtually ceased to exist awaiting an effective vaccine and therapeutic treatments.
====
Do you not understand that the ONLY reason your Ro rate is so low today IS because of strong physical distancing, and that any relaxation when so many new cases a day are being presented will blow that R0 number almost immediately?
The fact that you are still having a large number of new cases means what to you? (reporting about 4000 a day - not including those that are infected, asymptomatic and untested)

Are you aware of what is happening in other nations embarking on a similar move with much lower new case levels and better testing/tracing regimes?
Singapore is now almost a second wave disaster zone...
China is having outbreaks all over the place...
and so on...
====
Putin has just ordered a relaxation of lock down and his nation is experiencing over 11000 new reported cases per day...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05...oronavirus-cases-passes-italy-and-uk/12236120
Basically he is claiming by this action that the fight against this virus is lost and it is every man with a hazmat suit for himself. Economics vs lives, when both are inextricably entwined.
Is this what Boris is contemplating?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You can go on about contract tracing all you want, but the UK, USA, and other countries, have long since been past the point where that became worthwhile.

Putin and Trump couldn't have said it any better...
The problem is the surrender you, Boris and others contemplate will not restore the economy in fact it will further destroy it...
Unless of course you can force people to work in unsafe work places..

 

[Bells]

when it comes to contact tracing regional movement to prevent the whack a mole problem has to be prevented. International and internal borders have to be enforced. People have just got to stop moving around.
If your lock down was adequately complied with you would have just about killed off the virus by now.
But it wasn't and it hasn't.
Even if the nation was thoroughly infected the virus has a time limit. ( if it does not reproduce)
If people keep coming in to continue the infection cycle you will never get on top of it...
There is nothing half arsed about it...
14-30 days would be all it takes... but no.. and feeding the beast with travelers from a badly infected Europe/USA and where ever is just plain nuts....
So economically you have an extended hit and on top of that you have an extended lock down with high death toll and so on.
This is what the Australian and New Zealand governments sort to avoid.
Currently our internal and international borders are solid and have been for a couple of months.

Do the math, think about it and work it out...
Bozo made a big mistake. Human nature is what it is...

We learned the hard way...the Ruby Princess Cruise ship disembarked with voluntary lock down being the go and we ended up with over 600 + cases and 20 fatalities.
That is 1 in 10 cases directly related to noncompliance and bureaucrats badly underestimating the seriousness of the situation.
So we enforced our borders and put all arrivals into 14 days mandatory quarantine in hotels and even then some tried to escape...
People are people and their behavior in a crisis is very rarely ideal.

Australia peaked at what? 450 or something cases in one day, after the Ruby Princess disaster?

The UK peaked at thousands in a day.

People entering the UK were no longer increasing the daily total as local spread was more dangerous and higher than any coming in from overseas.

Our measures worked for us because we implemented them much earlier, before the rate went up. And frankly, because we got lucky.

You are trying to lash out at people and frankly, you are making a mockery of yourself.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are trying to lash out at people and frankly, you are making a mockery of yourself.

lashing out??

 

[Sarkus]

The problem is the surrender you, Boris and others contemplate will not restore the economy in fact it will further destroy it...

There you go with your sensationalism, QQ. You can't seem to help yourself! It's all words like "surrender", and "destroy".

You seem to think that we are that different.

We are. Completely different scenario as to when the first measures were put in place, and likely the true number of infected at that time.

The only difference is in the numbers not the intent.

No, the intent is different, as explained: in Australia it is to eradicate the virus, to stop it spreading entirely. In the UK and other such countries it is to minimise the number of cases to a manageable level. We have gone well past the ability to stop the spread entirely. Do you really not see how that is different?

My comment originally was that I was surprised that the UK borders were not closed, and you decided in an over defensiveness manner to ridicule my thoughts.

It wasn't your surprise but your subsequent opinion that remains worthy of ridicule.

Of course it makes sense to restrict your borders today.

They have been restricted for quite some time - just no full quarantine for arriving passengers. That is why our airlines are seeing a drop-off of over 90% in passengers - and as also explained to you previously, the vast majority of those inward passengers have been UK citizens returning home, and most outward have been foreign citizens returning to their own country.

Better late than never.

Your understanding of the facts is woeful, and your conclusions / opinions based upon them are pathetic, unhelpful, and worthy of nothing but the gutter-press.

All the delay has achieved is elongate the economic hit and higher death rates.

Nonsense. While the initial reaction was unfortunately rather slow, the subsequent quarantining of incoming passengers is only now making sense for the UK situation.

The science will tell you that if you don't restrict your borders now you will inevitably have to later...and the economic clock is ticking all the time...You either quarantine properly or you will be playing Russian Roulette with this thing until you do.

We have restricted our borders, to all but essential travel. And we have done since mid-March. The odd additional infected case coming in with those people being allowed in has likely had negligble impact since then.

The only difference (UK, AU and NZ) is that we wanted to get this over with with the least amount of damage in the shortest possible time.

No, that's actually the one similarity. The difference is the situation the countries find themselves in, and the situation when they first implemented lockdowns. This has driven a slightly different agenda, one the UK seemed to be working toward from the outset, though, of the UK looking to keep the infection rate to manageable levels, and Australia looking to prevent any cases.

Do you not understand that the ONLY reason your Ro rate is so low today IS because of strong physical distancing, and that any relaxation when so many new cases a day are being presented will blow that R0 number almost immediately?

Which, QQ, is why the relaxing of any lockdown measures will be done gradually - to ensure the R number does not rise to unamanageable levels again. It is about finding that accepable balance between lifting measures and maintaining an R number no higher than 1.

The fact that you are still having a large number of new cases means what to you? (reporting about 4000 a day - not including those that are infected, asymptomatic and untested)

It also doesn't include those that are infected, symptomatic, and untested - i.e. those that simply have symptoms and self-isolate at home, not needing the intervention of our healthcare.
The daily case number is falling, which given the increase in testing capacity is very good news. It means the lockdown is doing its job, and if the case load is manageable then it might be time to slowly, gradually, relax the measures while keeping the R number below 1.
Because that is the situation the UK, and other countries, are in. That is the objective.

Are you aware of what is happening in other nations embarking on a similar move with much lower new case levels and better testing/tracing regimes?
Singapore is now almost a second wave disaster zone...
China is having outbreaks all over the place...
and so on...

And there you go again with your sensationalism "second wave disaster zone"
It has always been expected that this pandemic, like nearly every other example prior to this, will go through waves, quite often the second much worse than the first.

Putin has just ordered a relaxation of lock down and his nation is experiencing over 11000 new reported cases per day...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05...oronavirus-cases-passes-italy-and-uk/12236120
Basically he is claiming by this action that the fight against this virus is lost and it is every man with a hazmat suit for himself. Economics vs lives, when both are inextricably entwined.

Of course it is economics vs lives. When has it not been? Do you think countries should go into lockdown for the annual flu season, for example? Or do we not do that because the economic impact of doing it is not worth the cost, because the health services can cope with the outbreaks, even if it means hundreds of thousands die annually from it.

Is this what Boris is contemplating?

I am not privvy to his thoughts. I would suspect he will promote a much more gradual relaxation, and judge accordingly. If the R number rises again then the measures lifted would presumably be reinstated. But until/unless that happens, who knows.
I could, if you want, make up some spurious speculative apple, sensationalise it, and compare it to a neighbouring orange? Would that suit you better?

 

[Quantum Quack]

There you go with your sensationalism, QQ. You can't seem to help yourself! It's all words like "surrender", and "destroy".
We are. Completely different scenario as to when the first measures were put in place, and likely the true number of infected at that time.
No, the intent is different, as explained: in Australia it is to eradicate the virus, to stop it spreading entirely. In the UK and other such countries it is to minimise the number of cases to a manageable level. We have gone well past the ability to stop the spread entirely. Do you really not see how that is different?
It wasn't your surprise but your subsequent opinion that remains worthy of ridicule.
They have been restricted for quite some time - just no full quarantine for arriving passengers. That is why our airlines are seeing a drop-off of over 90% in passengers - and as also explained to you previously, the vast majority of those inward passengers have been UK citizens returning home, and most outward have been foreign citizens returning to their own country.
Your understanding of the facts is woeful, and your conclusions / opinions based upon them are pathetic, unhelpful, and worthy of nothing but the gutter-press.
Nonsense. While the initial reaction was unfortunately rather slow, the subsequent quarantining of incoming passengers is only now making sense for the UK situation.
We have restricted our borders, to all but essential travel. And we have done since mid-March. The odd additional infected case coming in with those people being allowed in has likely had negligble impact since then.
No, that's actually the one similarity. The difference is the situation the countries find themselves in, and the situation when they first implemented lockdowns. This has driven a slightly different agenda, one the UK seemed to be working toward from the outset, though, of the UK looking to keep the infection rate to manageable levels, and Australia looking to prevent any cases.

Which, QQ, is why the relaxing of any lockdown measures will be done gradually - to ensure the R number does not rise to unamanageable levels again. It is about finding that accepable balance between lifting measures and maintaining an R number no higher than 1.
It also doesn't include those that are infected, symptomatic, and untested - i.e. those that simply have symptoms and self-isolate at home, not needing the intervention of our healthcare.
The daily case number is falling, which given the increase in testing capacity is very good news. It means the lockdown is doing its job, and if the case load is manageable then it might be time to slowly, gradually, relax the measures while keeping the R number below 1.
Because that is the situation the UK, and other countries, are in. That is the objective.
And there you go again with your sensationalism "second wave disaster zone"
It has always been expected that this pandemic, like nearly every other example prior to this, will go through waves, quite often the second much worse than the first.
Of course it is economics vs lives. When has it not been? Do you think countries should go into lockdown for the annual flu season, for example? Or do we not do that because the economic impact of doing it is not worth the cost, because the health services can cope with the outbreaks, even if it means hundreds of thousands die annually from it.
I am not privvy to his thoughts. I would suspect he will promote a much more gradual relaxation, and judge accordingly. If the R number rises again then the measures lifted would presumably be reinstated. But until/unless that happens, who knows.
I could, if you want, make up some spurious speculative apple, sensationalise it, and compare it to a neighbouring orange? Would that suit you better?

Tell ya what..
I 'll respond to your post #1707 in 14 days from now ( say 26th/05/02020)...and then we can

some spurious speculative apple, sensationalise it, and compare it to a neighbouring orange?

Afterall,

Your understanding of the facts is woeful, and your conclusions / opinions based upon them are pathetic, unhelpful, and worthy of nothing but the gutter-press.

Lets see what the fact prevail... yes?

 

[Bells]

No, the intent is different, as explained: in Australia it is to eradicate the virus, to stop it spreading entirely.

Just a small correction..

The intent of the Australian government was to flatten the curve and reduce the spread, it was never to eradicate.

It was quite successful - to a certain extent. But only because everything was put in place early.

We will never eradicate it. The only way we could eradicate it would be to go into lockdown (complete lockdown) for a few more months. But at present, there is simply too much community spread in some areas of the country to even hope for eradication.

New Zealand will come very close.

That being said, the UK cannot be compared to Australia or New Zealand. Population size, sprawl in urban areas.

Anywho, carry on..

 

[Sarkus]

The intent of the Australian government was to flatten the curve and reduce the spread, it was never to eradicate.

My mistake - I must have been thinking of NZ. 'Cos it's all the same down there, isn't it? Nothing but a few 1,000 miles of ocean between the two.

 

[river]

To eradicate this virus is to give it less efficacy .

 

[river]

Huge bacteria-eating viruses close gap between life and non-life



https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200212131458.htm

 

[Quantum Quack]

People entering the UK were no longer increasing the daily total as local spread was more dangerous and higher than any coming in from overseas.

I am unsure how you can consider an infected person arriving into the UK as no longer increasing the daily tally.
But you are not alone, even the British Home office thought in similar bizarre ways..

The Home Office is facing further questions about the lack of interventions at the border before the coronavirus lockdown after the government’s chief scientific adviser revealed the UK received a “big influx of cases” from Europe that “seeded right the way across the country”.

Sir Patrick Vallance was giving evidence to the health and social care committee after figures revealed that just 273 out of the 18.1 million people who entered the UK in the three months prior to the coronavirus lockdown were formally quarantined.

Vallance said that studying the genomics of the virus had allowed them to determine the origin of cases brought into the UK.

Arrivals into the UK have plummeted by as much as 99% on some routes but the country has been described as an “outlier” in its approach to border controls during the crisis. The only measures being taken at the border are the use of posters, digital displays and leaflets with information about the measures in place.

The Home Office has insisted that the scientific advice showed that placing restrictions at the border would not have had a significant impact on the spread of the virus in the UK.
....
Doughty said: “The admission that just four flights from two locations, barely a few hundred individuals – out of literally millions of arrivals – were formally quarantined while the pandemic was already raging in a series of locations beggars belief.

“On what scientific basis were a handful of flights from Wuhan and one from a Tokyo singled out for extreme attention? But not a single flight from Northern Italy, Spain or the US?

“The fact that many of these people then likely arrived and travelled onwards across the UK with little or no adherence to social distancing, and with no checks or protections at the border – barely a whiff of hand sanitiser – is deeply disturbing. Let alone the arrival of 3,000 fans from Madrid [for a football match against Liverpool] as the pandemic picked up speed.

“Yet arrivals continue to this day – with no formal quarantine requirements. It is simply staggering. Who made these decisions? And on what basis?”
====
src: just one of many:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...iving-in-uk-in-run-up-to-lockdown-quarantined​

18 million people in the 3 months prior to the very late lock down arrived in the UK. No effective quarantine and that was even as Italy and Spain were in so much trouble.

Repatriation of potentially infected UK citizens were not quarantined either after the Lock down.

The home office has insisted on a lot of rather bizarre things... which is why the UK is were it is today I guess...

...and this is the same Home Office that is attempting to manage a staged relaxation of quarantine in the middle of a pandemic...
good luck with that!

 

[Bells]

My mistake - I must have been thinking of NZ. 'Cos it's all the same down there, isn't it? Nothing but a few 1,000 miles of ocean between the two.

No, the goal was to flatten the line and "stop the spread".. NZ has come close to eradication because of how fast they responded and how they responded. But there are still clusters all over the place, like in Australia as well..

I am unsure how you can consider an infected person arriving into the UK as no longer increasing the daily tally.

What I meant was that there was more in the UK than was being brought in by plane.

You are quoting from an article about what the UK should have done months ago.

I should add that Australia was in the same boat and made the same errors earlier on. We just got super lucky.

 

[Quantum Quack]

We just got super lucky.

We were indeed lucky especially with regards to the uptick in people recognizing just how serious this contagion was.
People can be forgiven for being slow to realise that their world was about to be upended and just what was required to minimize the fall out.
The Ruby Princes debacle was Australia's wake up call.IMO..and one we are still paying hugely for. But it was a lesson we learned quickly and adapted rapidly to the ramifications.
Things were happening so fast and to expect a bureaucracy to quite literally change over night is one hell of an ask.

Many people in Australia including politicians, were scrambling to attempt to comprehend the sheer scale of what was happening and that rapid adaptation we went through is what saved our backsides from replicating the devastation being wrought in Europe and China. ( at the time the USA was even further behind)
The thing is the pace of change was soooo fast... it is expected that mistakes will be made.

The UK was just a little slower in moving from a "develop herd immunity " strategy ( thinking influenza instead of SARS) to a stronger strategy of quarantine, stabilize and then heal.

I think the people of France, Spain and Italy are still trying to work out what hit them and will probably be doing so for a generation or two.
And it is all far from being over...and until a vaccine is developed life is going to be very different for just about every one.

 

[Sarkus]

No, the goal was to flatten the line and "stop the spread".. NZ has come close to eradication because of how fast they responded and how they responded. But there are still clusters all over the place, like in Australia as well..

https://time.com/5824042/new-zealand-coronavirus-elimination/
This suggests that their goal is to eliminate the virus. Of course, that plays out by flattening the curve, as any curve that goes from an increase to zero must first flatten. But their goal is/was to eradicate it. At least per this article, and others I have read.
But not worth arguing further over.

 

[arfa brane]

It will be interesting to see how NZ's small economy hangs together, one thing the country has had for a while is the ability to be self sufficient.
Maybe some people will move back to rural areas; in NZ you can hunt and fish just about anywhere (except the cities of course) . . .

 

[Bells]

https://time.com/5824042/new-zealand-coronavirus-elimination/
This suggests that their goal is to eliminate the virus. Of course, that plays out by flattening the curve, as any curve that goes from an increase to zero must first flatten. But their goal is/was to eradicate it. At least per this article, and others I have read.
But not worth arguing further over.

It's their hope.. But realistically, won't be achieved as there are still clusters and community infection occurring.

And it would mean not opening their borders at all until a vaccine is found.. It would destroy their economy, as tourism is one of their biggest earners..

They may be able to control it, but I don't think any country can eliminate or eradicate it - maybe if there is a vaccine one day.. Maybe.. But in the current climate, it would be difficult for them.

That aside, what New Zealand was able to achieve is fantastic. However, one cannot compare New Zealand with other countries, due to their lower population and how they live - they aren't crammed into cities and packed suburbs.. Which isn't a point of argument to begin with.. It's more a just in case others try to use it as a comparison..

Elimination is a hope, and we'll have to wait a few months before we know if they were successful.

It will be interesting to see how NZ's small economy hangs together, one thing the country has had for a while is the ability to be self sufficient.
Maybe some people will move back to rural areas; in NZ you can hunt and fish just about anywhere (except the cities of course) . . .

That depends. They will suffer as tourism is such a vital part of their economy. And exports for things like wine and also the movie industry.

There is talk of opening up tourism with Australia, once we get our numbers a bit lower.. As in New Zealand, currently there are a few clusters occurring in a few parts of the country.

And then later Singapore once they get their rates down a bit as well..

Tourism would be selective and regional - probably for a while. So that could help them a bit.

And social distancing is kind of natural in New Zealand, in that the majority don't live one on top of the other and all packed around the cities. They have a smaller population as well.

 

[arfa brane]

And social distancing is kind of natural in New Zealand, in that the majority don't live one on top of the other and all packed around the cities. They have a smaller population as well.

I was thinking more along the lines of thousands of people going Bear Grylls, reverting to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It could help keep the infestations of unwanted mammals and other varmints down. Anyone know a good bushrat pie recipe?

 

[Bells]

I was thinking more along the lines of thousands of people going Bear Grylls, reverting to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It could help keep the infestations of unwanted mammals and other varmints down. Anyone know a good bushrat pie recipe?

Hah!

Well, they are attempting to eradicate all rats, feral cats and possums from the country ..