Coronavirus

[dhanson865]

week 1 on this is around Apr 1 when the SAH order came out for my location. Week 2 was our local peak of new cases and Week 3 was still quite active. Week 5 was the local minimum so they started talking about opening back up. Week 6 is when we opened up phase 1 ( May 1st on an upslope of new cases because people rushed out before phase one officially began), Week 10 is the current week and isn't over yet so that number will rise but is also the week that we opened up even more for phase 2 (May 26 also on an upslope of new cases).

I really don't understand why they can't see the need to close back down when they see the upslopes after phase 1 (or at least not open up further). Why am I sitting here at the beginning of phase 2 / end of phase 1 with less restrictions in place after looking at more new cases than we had at the beginning of phase 1 with more restrictions? How high do new cases have to go before they pull back from phase 2 and lock it down again?

I get the impression they see the trend line going down and are ignoring the policy changes. Yep if you kept things closed down that trend line was decreasing, but you've reopened now and it will bounce back up.


View attachment 545754

I would say those numbers are basically flat since week 6. And the fact that you're in phase 2 and haven't seen things explode is probably a good thing. I guess you'll see whether that holds.

I stressed before that week 10 was partial, here is how that looks with full week 10 data, red mark for phase 1 reopening, orange mark for phase 2 official date (which everyone jumped the gun on). Source data from Knox County COVID-19 Case Count - COVID-19 - Health Department - Knox County Tennessee Government

I had visibility to the daily numbers that is why I stressed (or attempted to stress) we had an influx in new cases for week 10 and why I stressed it was partial. I guess I could have just waited a few days and posted it now to avoid that confusion, or maybe I should have projected to the end of week 10 to give visibility to the slope at the time I posted. Maybe I should have left it with no line between week 9 and 10 and put a projected dot for week 10.

I don't see that as basically flat and don't agree that we aren't seeing things explode.

I see these upward slopes as we open up and fear it's going to continue to get worse if we don't shut back down to phase 1 or phase 0 rules.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I had visibility to the daily numbers that is why I stressed (or attempted to stress) we had an influx in new cases for week 10 and why I stressed it was partial. I guess I could have just waited a few days and posted

Oh, I heard you loud and clear on that. Was just trying to maintain optimism. This sort of looks like what Bill Hanage on Twitter outlines.

I would say it does not look like an explosion - it looks like possibly steady growth. What is your testing picture looking like locally?

For small numbers like this, a large increase could be due to a single unfortunate (but well contained) event. (Which would mean there has not been significant increase in community transmission.)

Again...just trying to look on the bright side. I’ve made it pretty clear here that I am not that optimistic about our prospects over the next month, unless testing and tracing scales with exponential growth rate greater than the virus.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I guess that's just because the 18772 appears twice, "0-199" is not a category of its own, but the subtotal of all other categories except the no-data category.

Ah of course, like I said was not really too interested in perusing it. Anyway, looks like 11k deaths are uncounted in that stratified assessment. Less clear how many cases are uncounted (looks like nearly zero based on the tabulation).

 

[dhanson865]

I would say it does not look like an explosion - it looks like possibly steady growth. What is your testing picture looking like locally?

For small numbers like this, a large increase could be due to a single unfortunate (but well contained) event. (Which would mean there has not been significant increase in community transmission.)

Again...just trying to look on the bright side. I’ve made it pretty clear here that I am not that optimistic about our prospects over the next month, unless testing and tracing scales with exponential growth rate greater than the virus.

Week 9 was 25 cases, week 10 was 60 cases, over 2x the week 9 number. The one single day of week 11 seems to be on pace for an increase.

Testing in that time frame isn't published yet, the new cases data goes up to today but the testing data is only published up to two weeks ago (14 days or so lag on publishing that stat for some reason).

News reports from local sources show no more than 3 people at any one location infected at any time in the since phase 1 or phase 2 started. We have no news of any significant single event. It seems to be mostly 1 on 1 transmission if I'm reading those tea leaves right.

 

[dhanson865]

Coronavirus bathroom policies give new challenges

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Week 9 was 25 cases, week 10 was 60 cases, over 2x the week 9 number. The one single day of week 11 seems to be on pace for an increase.

Testing in that time frame isn't published yet, the new cases data goes up to today but the testing data is only published up to two weeks ago (14 days or so lag on publishing that stat for some reason).

News reports from local sources show no more than 3 people at any one location infected at any time in the since phase 1 or phase 2 started. We have no news of any significant single event. It seems to be mostly 1 on 1 transmission if I'm reading those tea leaves right.

Well, I wish you guys luck, and hope your cases go to zero sooner rather than later. The more testing the better. Hope your local testing has gone way up, but looking at statewide TN testing numbers it doesn’t look promising.

It’s seems almost like we’re done with this pandemic, so we don’t need to increase testing anymore. That is some solid thinking there.

-----
Here's an excess death analysis (no real surprises here of course...more deaths were missed early on in the ramp, as one would expect). Obviously the actual number of "true" COVID-19 deaths is hard to determine for the reasons outlined. A few confounding factors, for "normal" deaths, as previously discussed here:
1) Reduced mortality due to shutdown (less driving, accidents, fewer deaths caused by medical errors, etc.) => More reduction, more COVID-19 deaths.
2) Increased mortality due to reluctance to access care for other medical issues => More mortality, means fewer COVID deaths.
3) Increased mortality due to despair/depression/poverty => More mortality, means fewer COVID deaths.

In the end, won't have the final analysis for a while here. My guess is that factor 1) is higher than 2 & 3 combined (because accidental death is such a larger killer for many age groups, and medical errors are also a large killer). But just a guess.

Clear your cookies to clear the paywall of course. Or pay.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...eaths-may/?no_nav=true&p9w22b2p=b2p22p9w00098

 

[Open Interest]

Could CV-19 be a blood vessel disease? Could this perspective yield new therapies?

Coronavirus May Be a Blood Vessel Disease, Which Explains Everything

 

[dfwatt]

Could CV-19 be a blood vessel disease? Could this perspective yield new therapies?

Coronavirus May Be a Blood Vessel Disease, Which Explains Everything

Well in this thread you're a little bit late to the party. But if you search on this thread "endothelial" you'll see there are at least 30 posts about this issue. Along with links to medcram videos and the Lancet article. The challenge is to try to translate the insight about this as an endothelial disease with pleotropic manifestations into therapy. Several ideas are reducing oxidative stress, reducing inflammation, reducing thrombogenesis, blocking the disinhibited arm of the renin-angiotensin system, but each of those could have downsides too. See the medcram videos for some interesting ideas on low-risk therapies including N acetylcysteine, keeping your vitamin D level high, various polyphenols, etc. Low risk but probably modest impact also . .

 

[Norbert]

Ah of course, like I said was not really too interested in perusing it. Anyway, looks like 11k deaths are uncounted in that stratified assessment. Less clear how many cases are uncounted (looks like nearly zero based on the tabulation).

Since you wrote a post about it, let me try to clarify. I'm assuming that you are looking at the table that was posted as an image, 4:48 pm PT.

The individual categories add up exactly to 18,722: 2 + 5 + 23 + 61 + 197 + 605 + 1654 + 4529 + 7688 + 3958 = 18722.
I was guessing you might have come to 11k by comparing both to 26,744: 2 *18,722 - 26,744 = 10,700.
As I understand it, the number missed in the age group evaluation is 26,744 - 18,722 = 8,022.
I can't tell what you mean by "zero based".

Looking at the death numbers on worldometers, there have been three larger corrections later on. Since my previous examinations indicated that the death lag at the end of a curve seems to be more around 3 weeks rather than 2 weeks, I decided to stick with the number in my first calculation (which includes all corrections). If I wanted to be more exact, I would try to find out if it should be 100 or 200 lower, but that wouldn't make much of a difference. Especially opposed to the error that I have seen made by others, who considered only the one negative correction, but not the two positive ones before and after, and used no death lag at all. For example for 27,000, it still rounds up to 1.16%.

EDIT: As far as the IFR estimate is concerned, I also can't tell why the age group separation was used at all. It doesn't seem to be used for any normalization. It seems as if it was just used as a cover to get rid of 8,022 deaths, the ones without age info.

 

[JRP3]

The new coronavirus is losing its potency and has become much less lethal, a senior Italian doctor said on Sunday.

"In reality, the virus clinically no longer exists in Italy," said Alberto Zangrillo, the head of the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan in the northern region of Lombardy, which has borne the brunt of Italy's coronavirus contagion.

New coronavirus losing potency, top Italian doctor says

 

[dfwatt]

New coronavirus losing potency, top Italian doctor says

It's very unclear what the data is for such a strong statement. I'd be pretty skeptical until that data appears and it's vetted and reviewed and those conclusions are shared by a fairly disparate group of researchers and experts.

 

[Ben W]

Just saw this headline: Ford's police SUVs will heat up to 133 degrees to disinfect the interior - CNN

What do you think, should Teslas have a COVID Sterilization Mode?

 

[dfwatt]

Just saw this headline: Ford's police SUVs will heat up to 133 degrees to disinfect the interior - CNN

What do you think, should Teslas have a COVID Sterilization Mode?

Given the tiny percentage of transmission that is from surfaces as opposed to airborne, this may be Much Ado for a little benefit.

 

[dhanson865]

Just saw this headline: Ford's police SUVs will heat up to 133 degrees to disinfect the interior - CNN

What do you think, should Teslas have a COVID Sterilization Mode?

"Once the system is activated, the officer or technician then leaves the vehicle. The doors are locked automatically as the engine runs at an unusually high idle speed of around 2,000 RPM. That heats the engine coolant, which is then used to heat air that's pumped into the cabin, raising the cabin temperature for 15 minutes."

"There are currently no safeguards to prevent the system from being turned on while a person or animal is inside the car, according to Ford. It's up to the police officer or technician to make sure the vehicle is empty before the system starts. If any of the controls inside the car, such as the steering wheel, pedals or gear selector, are moved while the system is running, the process automatically stops."

That's hard core. Start this mode and it's like a self cleaning oven, locked with no way to unlock unless you have access to the front row seating. So anyone in the back seat or trunk is a goner. First thing I thought of was a K9 but a passed out human in the back seat (rear doors don't open from the inside, wire cage preventing you to get from back seat to front seat) would also be a possibility.

 

[TespaceX]

Just saw this headline: Ford's police SUVs will heat up to 133 degrees to disinfect the interior - CNN

What do you think, should Teslas have a COVID Sterilization Mode?

WTH??

Did they forget the difference between F and C temp scale?

 

[dhanson865]

WTH??

Did they forget the difference between F and C temp scale?

no, "Heat at 56°C kills the SARS coronavirus at around 10000 units per 15 min" and 56C is about 133F.

WHO | First data on stability and resistance of SARS coronavirus compiled by members of WHO laboratory network


now that isn't COVID-19 version of SARS but the temp profile is probably similar.

 

[Ben W]

Given the tiny percentage of transmission that is from surfaces as opposed to airborne, this may be Much Ado for a little benefit.

Presumably the heating would kill any airborne virus in the car too (though opening the windows for a few seconds should be nearly as effective).

 

[jerry33]

no, "Heat at 56°C kills the SARS coronavirus at around 10000 units per 15 min" and 56C is about 133F.

WHO | First data on stability and resistance of SARS coronavirus compiled by members of WHO laboratory network


now that isn't COVID-19 version of SARS but the temp profile is probably similar.

Just note also that's in a laboratory, real life might need higher to be effective.

 

[Ben W]

That's hard core. Start this mode and it's like a self cleaning oven, locked with no way to unlock unless you have access to the front row seating. So anyone in the back seat or trunk is a goner. First thing I thought of was a K9 but a passed out human in the back seat (rear doors don't open from the inside, wire cage preventing you to get from back seat to front seat) would also be a possibility.

15 minutes in 133-degree air would probably not hurt you. People regularly spend 5-10 minutes in 170-degree saunas with no ill effects. Also it's not clear whether 133 degrees is sustained for the entire 15 minutes, or just the max temperature reached during the interval.

 

[Ben W]

Just note also that's in a laboratory, real life might need higher to be effective.

It doesn't need to be perfect. It takes a measurable dose of virus (several hundred particles) to cause an infection, so killing most of them (e.g. 99%) is just as effective as killing all of them.