California shut down very hard and fast. When they reopened, nearly 100% of the population was still susceptible to the virus, so it spread like wildfire. Especially since the reopening was not exactly slow. Compare this to the Northeast and much of Western Europe where the virus spread too quickly until lockdowns reduced the spread. Now, keeping the transmission rate low in those areas has become comparatively easy,…
The effectiveness of a middle ground strategy is pure conjecture. Canada shut down fast and hard - like California - and is not seeing cases spike. Perhaps because we re-opened slowly and people are still generally cautious - wearing masks in public and maintaining social distance. Or perhaps because we have not been getting wildly mixed messages from local/provincial/national leaders about the severity of the situat…
California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges
31–40 of 152 posts
Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that Canada is currently at the stage of reopening that California is rolling back to, where gyms, indoor restaurants, and movie theaters are closed.
Yup, that's the case in Ontario. Mask wearing is also now mandatory indoors. I guess the question is why did California rush to re-open fully?
Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges
#33Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges
#34The only question now is, which state will win the race to be the first to reinstitute stay-at-home orders?
My guess is that no states will do that. Even as the number of cases goes up, deaths (the more important number) keeps coming down. https://i.imgur.com/LMVNbBD.png We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. It seems pretty clear now that even our low estimates of fatality were too high and that many people had Covid-19 in March/April/May and were neve…
Check out the SF data: comparing "All California" to Bay Area shows that we're rising in cases and deaths in california as a whole, but flat/declining in northern california.
This phenomenon, I believe, is happening all over the place.
Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges
#35Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges
#36California shut down very hard and fast. When they reopened, nearly 100% of the population was still susceptible to the virus, so it spread like wildfire. Especially since the reopening was not exactly slow. Compare this to the Northeast and much of Western Europe where the virus spread too quickly until lockdowns reduced the spread. Now, keeping the transmission rate low in those areas has become comparatively easy,…
> ... but any amount of immunity in a population makes transmission of the virus more difficult. That may be true from a pure logical/mathematical point of view, but that doesn't mean it makes a practical difference. Herd immunity is something that happens when a very large percentage of the population is immune. For mumps (which has a very high R0), you need about 92% immunity level for it to be effective. For COVID…
Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess is that no states will do that. Even as the number of cases goes up, deaths (the more important number) keeps coming down. https://i.imgur.com/LMVNbBD.png We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. It seems pretty clear now that even our low estimates of fatality were too high and that many people had Covid-19 in March/April/May and were neve…
> deaths (the more important number) One of the more interesting things I've been reading is that we shouldn't think about this as a total binary. There are reports that survivors exhibit have long-term effects, such as neurological issues [1] and lung damage. So yes, it's good that fewer people are dying! But that doesn't mean everything is simply great now. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200622-the-long-…
Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges
#38The only question now is, which state will win the race to be the first to reinstitute stay-at-home orders?
My guess is that no states will do that. Even as the number of cases goes up, deaths (the more important number) keeps coming down. https://i.imgur.com/LMVNbBD.png We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. It seems pretty clear now that even our low estimates of fatality were too high and that many people had Covid-19 in March/April/May and were neve…
It happened a week ago. It's easier to see when you look at a moving average.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-daily-deaths-trajec...
Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges
#39The only question now is, which state will win the race to be the first to reinstitute stay-at-home orders?
My guess is that no states will do that. Even as the number of cases goes up, deaths (the more important number) keeps coming down. https://i.imgur.com/LMVNbBD.png We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. It seems pretty clear now that even our low estimates of fatality were too high and that many people had Covid-19 in March/April/May and were neve…
Is it though?
> For every one person who dies:
> 19 more require hospitalization.
> 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives.
> 10 will have permanent lung damage.
> 3 will have strokes.
> 2 will have neurological damage that leads to chronic weakness and loss of coordination.
> 2 will have neurological damage that leads to loss of cognitive function.
* https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-disease-with-1-mortality-shu...
Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges
#40I dont understand for the life of me why the state cant get tough on masks and distancing with the rule of law. All they do is put out suggestions and guildelines. Until they flex the guidlines with some muscle it's just theatre
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7181938/
https://www.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
> Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
> We did not consider the use of respirators in the community. Respirators are tight-fitting masks that can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency. However, respirators, such as N95 and P2 masks, work best when they are fit-tested, and these masks will be in limited supply during the next pandemic. These specialist devices should be reserved for use in healthcare settings or in special subpopulations such as immunocompromised persons in the community, first responders, and those performing other critical community functions, as supplies permit.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
> Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3767.pdf
> The purpose of a facemask, when worn by a patient suspected or confirmed with an illness such as influenza or tuberculosis, is to reduce the amount of large infectious particles released as the patient talks, sneezes, or coughs; this limits their concentration in the room air and reduces the infection risk to others who are present.
> However, facemasks by design do not seal tightly to the wearer’s face. Therefore, they allow unfiltered air to easily flow around the sides of the facemask into the breathing zone and respiratory tract of the wearer. In addition, the materials used for facemasks are not regulated for their ability to filter particles and are known to vary greatly between models. This makes it possible for small particles to pass through or around the facemask and be inhaled by the wearer. This is why they are not considered respiratory protection— facemasks do NOT provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller particles, including those emitted into the room air by a patient who is exhaling or coughing, or generated during certain medical procedures.
Also eyes are an entry point too:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.086165v1....
> Conclusions: Together, these results indicate that ocular surface cells including conjunctiva are susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2, and could therefore serve as a portal of entry as well as a reservoir for person-to-person transmission of this virus. This highlights the importance of safety practices including face masks and ocular contact precautions in preventing the spread of COVID-19 disease.
EDIT: Why is everyone downvoting me? I literally shared multiple studies which state "There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure."