57 COVID deaths in GA today: Post-opening spike starting?

Monkeys typing wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

There is no substantial evidence that quarantine of healthy people is effective; you are just making things up and calling names rather than provide evidence; if it was so obvious there would be evidence. Show it.

You're looking for proof that a person needs to be exposed to a pathogen to become infected?

I'm just trying to understand how much of late 1800s medicine needs to be reviewed on this thread to satisfy your obviously good faith attempt to understand the matter.

How is that even remotely a good rational. Does full lockdown and quarantine of healthy people actually mitigate exposure enough to have a significant positive impact? Not much evidence. Does it have a negative impact; some evidence, but we need more. Then there is this modeling study, but all modeling should be taken with grain of salt, or many; and it is not peer reviewed so I am only really doing what others have done but at least this is something:

agip wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

You're looking for proof that a person needs to be exposed to a pathogen to become infected?

I'm just trying to understand how much of late 1800s medicine needs to be reviewed on this thread to satisfy your obviously good faith attempt to understand the matter.

I think it's a valid question on the tradeoffs of locking down healthy people in dense urban cores.

In an apartment building with 50 small units...is it better to be indoors all day rebreathing air exhaled by virus carriers or better to get out into the fresh air where the virus is diluted?

Fair enough. They did a hard lock down with strictly enforced stay at home in Wuhan and with separate quarantine residences for those who tested positive and stamped it out pretty quickly.

That suggests that lock downs can stop the spread. It doesn't address what might be the minimally disruptive way to stop the spread.

Monkeys typing wrote:

agip wrote:

I think it's a valid question on the tradeoffs of locking down healthy people in dense urban cores.

In an apartment building with 50 small units...is it better to be indoors all day rebreathing air exhaled by virus carriers or better to get out into the fresh air where the virus is diluted?

Fair enough. They did a hard lock down with strictly enforced stay at home in Wuhan and with separate quarantine residences for those who tested positive and stamped it out pretty quickly.

That suggests that lock downs can stop the spread. It doesn't address what might be the minimally disruptive way to stop the spread.

yeah ok

I hear other anecdotes about hard hit Queens and the Bronx, with very poor people living in 100 year old tenement buildings and suffering massive mortality. Apparently the ecuadorians in NYC just got hammered in their enclave. Have to wonder if poor people sharing apartments was part of the problem in NYC.

Fat hurts wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Evidence or still just your opinion?

Both.

What is the evidence?

Monkeys typing wrote:

agip wrote:

I think it's a valid question on the tradeoffs of locking down healthy people in dense urban cores.

In an apartment building with 50 small units...is it better to be indoors all day rebreathing air exhaled by virus carriers or better to get out into the fresh air where the virus is diluted?

Fair enough. They did a hard lock down with strictly enforced stay at home in Wuhan and with separate quarantine residences for those who tested positive and stamped it out pretty quickly.

That suggests that lock downs can stop the spread. It doesn't address what might be the minimally disruptive way to stop the spread.

Most common place to become infected with COVID: Home

Key phrase in bold for lots of countries who have been successful.

Along with:

Wear a mask

Social distance

Wash your hands

GET TESTED

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Both.

What is the evidence?

You seriously couldn't find more than one study? This question has been studied to death. Google harder.

Monkeys typing wrote:

agip wrote:

I think it's a valid question on the tradeoffs of locking down healthy people in dense urban cores.

In an apartment building with 50 small units...is it better to be indoors all day rebreathing air exhaled by virus carriers or better to get out into the fresh air where the virus is diluted?

Fair enough. They did a hard lock down with strictly enforced stay at home in Wuhan and with separate quarantine residences for those who tested positive and stamped it out pretty quickly.

That suggests that lock downs can stop the spread. It doesn't address what might be the minimally disruptive way to stop the spread.

That's one data point; an untrustable one at that; there may have been 10x as many deaths in Wuhan...we will never know. They did not lock down the rest of the country, and to their account, with little new cases.

The point about confinement and breathing indoor air above is a very valid concern caused by lockdown in cities and possibly killed many as a result.

brazen2 wrote:

Most common place to become infected with COVID: Home

You remind me of the man who read that most auto accidents happen within five miles of home.

So he moved.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

I don't really get the argument here. Sweden and its neighbors like Norway are the perfect examples. Homogenous populations, and you see that Sweden had substantially higher deaths ( have seen 10x per capita) after forgoing a lockdown. Both are in similar boats now, but one suffered much more as far as deaths, strain on the medical system etc. Economically, the benefits were marginal if at all as consumers change behavior when there is a pandemic around them.

Click play on the data video here and watch for Norway, Finland and Denmark to move into mandated lockdown.....it never happened, ever, and we never needed it either:

R0 in Georgia is 0.97.

July 23 - 0.97

June 23- 1.4

May 23 - 1.1

April 23 - 0.97

Low - 0.83

Wear a mask

Social distance

Wash your hands

GET TESTED

East Asian countries were way ahead of much of the West in adopting widespread mask-wearing as a means to reduce transmission of the coronavirus.

But there’s something else Asian countries do to control the spread that seems almost unthinkable in the United States: centralized isolation of people who test positive for Covid-19 and their close contacts.

You don’t tell sick people to go home where they can infect their families and roommates; you send them someplace set aside for the purpose.

Hong Kong has more metro riders than New York in a city with a similar population size and significantly fewer miles of track. And while Hong Kong has a lower overall population density than New York City, that’s because nearly 40 percent of the territory is composed of designated country parks that are free of development. The built-up portion of Hong Kong is hyper-dense, and the average apartment is smaller than 500 square feet.

But despite these factors and very close economic linkages to China, Hong Kong contained the crisis — not just with tests but with centralized isolation.

Wear a mask

Social distance

Wash your hands

GET TESTED

agip wrote:

NYCers are all wearing masks right now and they have no virus either.

I sincerely wish that either of these assertions were true.

There are way too many members of the Too Cool for School Crew going into stores and other indoor spaces maskless.

OTOH I wil grant that large numbers of people (including me) wear their masks whenever they're outside their homes, regardless of social spacing (and the fact that very few infections seem to occur outdoors). I suppose it's at least partly because most of us know people who've been badly sickened or killed by COVID-19. Things do seem to be getting better, but a good friend lost his mom over the weekend, even though she'd been doing things "right." This ain't over yet.

Sad to say, much of the rest of the country may not understand/accept the value of masks until they too know people who've been stricken deathly ill, or dead, by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. What a shame: tens of thousands of lives wasted. NYC has already lost tens of thousands, and you'd think the rest of the U.S. could learn from that...but apparently not. Reminds me of an adage from Ben Franklin:

Experience keeps a dear* school, but fools will learn in no other.

*dear = expensive

brazen2 wrote:

R0 in Georgia is 0.97.

July 23 - 0.97

June 23- 1.4

May 23 - 1.1

April 23 - 0.97

Low - 0.83

Wear a mask

Social distance

Wash your hands

GET TESTED

The truth on Ro is slowly emerging with the data; I agree with taking reasonable measures, masks and distancing a bit...and definitely cleaning...this thing will go away with normal measures; no lock downs ever needed.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

I don't really get the argument here. Sweden and its neighbors like Norway are the perfect examples. Homogenous populations, and you see that Sweden had substantially higher deaths ( have seen 10x per capita) after forgoing a lockdown. Both are in similar boats now, but one suffered much more as far as deaths, strain on the medical system etc. Economically, the benefits were marginal if at all as consumers change behavior when there is a pandemic around them.

Click play on the data video here and watch for Norway, Finland and Denmark to move into mandated lockdown.....it never happened, ever, and we never needed it either:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/stay-at-home-covid?year=2020-07-23

Nice video. Except it's wrong.

Norway locked down on March 12th. This was the same day it had its first death.

Denmark locked down on March 13th.

Finland did not have a lockdown but did put heavy restrictions in place on March 16th.

Those nations were able to get things under control very early and thus were able to open back up early. This is exactly what we should have done.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

Fair enough. They did a hard lock down with strictly enforced stay at home in Wuhan and with separate quarantine residences for those who tested positive and stamped it out pretty quickly.

That suggests that lock downs can stop the spread. It doesn't address what might be the minimally disruptive way to stop the spread.

That's one data point; an untrustable one at that; there may have been 10x as many deaths in Wuhan...we will never know. They did not lock down the rest of the country, and to their account, with little new cases.

The point about confinement and breathing indoor air above is a very valid concern caused by lockdown in cities and possibly killed many as a result.

good point that we really can't trust anything China says about Wuhan - the communist party needs to make it seem that they are handling all crises well. THey'll lie every day to make that seem true.

It has not been studied to death; you like lying though. If it is so easy find it; post it.

So you support centralized isolation?

I agree with you, but I don't think it would ever fly here in America.

However, some colleges are planning to give it a try this fall for students that test positive.

Always a class move to blame it on the immigrants. Yeah, I'm not convinced by your logic either. You can make excuses all you want. Comparing Sweden to Italy is silly and disingenuous based on when the virus hit and time to prepare. How'd they do compared to a prepared country like Germany? I'm not a huge comprehensive lockdown person either. I just know doing *nothing* is the wrong move if you have a spread you don't have under control. Sweden has admitted they did a poor job protecting the elderly and more vulnerable communities.

I do not think sending kids to schools should be a problem in many places. I'm in the Northeast right now, I would totally be game to if I were a parent. But if I lived in Florida I would not feel the same way.

Follow the science and the data. Neither of them say letting the virus "play out" is a good idea. At the very least, masks everywhere, protect elderly, close down indoor restaurants and bars and no gatherings. Sweden did not give us the blueprint.

You remind me of this guy.

Wear a mask

Social distance

Wash your hands

GET TESTED