COVID concerns in the Northeast

[gittist]

And I wouldn't be shocked at all, in say 5 or 10 years, if studies show that the harm done from a psychological standpoint, from the lockdowns, has a far greater toll on many in society than the disease process itself, for all but those who had multiple co-morbidities before hand.

It really is getting to the point, where if one removes the panic and hysteria that has been drummed up around most things COVID, and takes a scientific backed, critical look at things, it will show for most that social distancing, proper face/hand hygiene and mask use, and a relatively normal society for the vast majority of the population, is, and should of been the way to go.

What that brings into play, is that yes, you do need to single out certain members of society, because their risk is far greater, and trying to single out specific groups, (especially if it's not of a political ideological nature it seems ) just isn't an acceptable thing, even if the science shows that it's the more prudent, realistic thing to do with the greatest benefit for most

Dr Jeff should keep an eye for a black SUV. If he's not careful they'll sneak up behind him pull a bag over his head and take him to a re-education center where they'll drain his brain and turn him into another COVID zombie for speaking his mind.

 

[Edd]

Dr Jeff should keep an eye for a black SUV. If he's not careful they'll sneak up behind him pull a bag over his head and take him to a re-education center where they'll drain his brain and turn him into another COVID zombie for speaking his mind.

Is that a thing that happens?

 

[abc]

What the study didn't look into, is the different social structure of the two comparison country.

Of all the country studied, South Korea is the ONLY Asia country. Even in the study, it mentioned Korea "
relied on intensive investments in testing, contact tracing, and isolation of infected cases and close contacts", a combination none of the comparison country bother to even try. Most of the countries in comparison have limited testing, even less contact tracing, and NO enforceable isolation of infected cases.

Sweden is the only country worthy as a comparison country. But there, also to some degree Germany, the population tend to conform to the "recommended" guideline of social distancing and even in Sweden, large gathering are banned. Whilst in the "other" country, those same guideline were put out, IGNORED by majority of the population. Even in Sweden, it slowly adds more restrictive measures as case number climbs. The biggest difference being, most other countries in the study the case number climb fast due largely to the fact people totally ignore the social distancing "suggestions"!

What the study didn't bother to add to the comparison, are countries like Singapore, Taiwan etc. Where they're VERY AGGRESSIVE at the beginning in ENFORCING social distancing and isolation of infected. Basically, just like South Korea. None of those countries gone to full lockdown either! Majority of Asian countries didn't go to the extensive lockdown Europe and north America did. But the biggest difference is, their government were extremely intrusive in their enforcement of the limited social distancing measure, which most western countries either unable or unwilling to do.

Lockdown should have never been the first option. And it wasn't. The same "Korean approach" was tried in New York City, for less than a week! But due to lack of testing, no enforcement of social distancing, and non-existing contact tracing, it DIDN'T WORK!

(the same can be said about Italy too. local politicians came out suggest people go on with their social life as usual even after social distancing recommendations)

When you have population that ignores the more sensible behavior, and refuse to take personal responsibility, you end up with sky rocketing case loads. By which point, a full lockdown became the only options left!

What the study REALLY end up proving*, is lockdown isn't nearly as good as a combination of social distancing, contact tracing and isolation of infected. The latter was always the "preferred" approach. But it didn't work in most western countries used as comparison because the population wouldn't comply! So they got lockdown. They deserve it! We deserve what we got!

(*) The study didn't exactly "prove" it because it didn't bother including other Asian countries that didn't use full lockdown but enforced social distancing measures. Had they done that, the commonality and contrast between the two approaches would have been much clearer.

 

[skiur]

Dr Jeff should keep an eye for a black SUV. If he's not careful they'll sneak up behind him pull a bag over his head and take him to a re-education center where they'll drain his brain and turn him into another COVID zombie for speaking his mind.

Is that a thing that happens?

Happened to my neighbor last week.

 

[da-bum]

I have a feeling you're going to be hearing about this study soon. And that there's going to be a lot of revisionist history among politicians in the coming years.

For those who dont like reading scientific studies, across 10 different nations they found no statistically significant benefit of mandatory lockdown orders on having a beneficial COVID19 effect over that of simple voluntary measures like social distancing or reducing your travel.

Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19​

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484

Doesn't look like they are comparing apples to apples.......Sweden vs France? How about Sweden vs its Nordic neighbors. Maybe its not lockdown or not, but how hard it is enforced. Apparently, they did not include China in the study because their lockdown was absolute and rigidly enforced, thus bringing their runaway case level down to practically zero and now life goes on there.

There are a thousand ways to play with statistics, and this is one of it.

 

[Edd]

Happened to my neighbor last week.

With the SUV and the bag and draining the brain? Because that’s alarming.

 

[icecoast1]

Apparently, they did not include China in the study because their lockdown was absolute and rigidly enforced, thus bringing their runaway case level down to practically zero and now life goes on there.

It helps to have a more successful approach when you have inside knowledge of the virus as you're willingly allowing it to spread around the globe while taking extreme precautions in your own country and lying about it to the rest of the world

 

[drjeff]

Dr Jeff should keep an eye for a black SUV. If he's not careful they'll sneak up behind him pull a bag over his head and take him to a re-education center where they'll drain his brain and turn him into another COVID zombie for speaking his mind.

The Black SUV people are probably disappointed that dose #1 of the vaccine that I got a bit over 2 weeks ago didn't have the full effect they wanted on me!

I'm guessing that they'll have to bring me into the "special" vaccination room in about 2 weeks when I get dose #2!!

 

[da-bum]

It helps to have a more successful approach when you have inside knowledge of the virus as you're willingly allowing it to spread around the globe while taking extreme precautions in your own country and lying about it to the rest of the world

The rest of the world was watching the extreme approach that was taken place in China and took no action, except for Southeast and East Asian countries. The US then saw what was happening in Italy and thought it woudn't happen here. The rest of US saw what was happening in NYC and thought it wouldn't happen in their area......until it did.

 

[abc]

The rest of the world was watching the extreme approach that was taken place in China and took no action, except for Southeast and East Asian countries. The US then saw what was happening in Italy and thought it woudn't happen here. The rest of US saw what was happening in NYC and thought it wouldn't happen in their area......until it did.

Yes and no.

Most of the Asian countries didn't have a full lockdown like in China. In fact, most countries in Asia kept their schools open.

I wonder if that's where Sweden got the same idea. Sweden's population are more conforming than the rest of Europe. It's quite possible the "other Nordic countries" could have work too.

But Italy? France? Never mind in the US, when you have the highest office holder calling to "pack the churches by Easter". Did Sweden pack their churches on Easter???

From the article: "These observations are consistent with a model where the severity of the risk perceived by individuals was a stronger driver of anti-contagion behaviors than the specific nature of the NPIs"

Translation, those country whose population takes the virus seriously behave better. And the case number shows that.

p.s.
Now I'm beginning to think maybe the Vermonters got it right. The people there took it seriously. So they kept a low case number even when their neighbors' numbers are going up. Maybe I should move up my trip there now. Low case number, snow, skiing, what's not to like?

 

[icecoast1]

The rest of the world was watching the extreme approach that was taken place in China and took no action,

Largely due to being misled by China early on in the pandemic. Perhaps if outside medical officials were allowed in early on, we might have actually seen what was going on and taken a different approach. I'd be willing to bet, you wouldn't see people like Fauci saying it's nothing to worry about and won't be a problem for us. And it could have lead to a much more reasonable and more effective approach than the one we took.

The US then saw what was happening in Italy and thought it woudn't happen here.

We were already in a lockdown or stay at home order when Italy was going through the peak of their infection curve, and Italy was widely cited as a reason for the measures we took, and what happened in italy never really happened here (perhaps maybe in NYC early on, but not to the extent it happened in Italy)

 

[abc]

what happened in italy never really happened here

The article suggests: "severity of the risk perceived by individuals was a stronger driver of anti-contagion behaviors".

If you don't mind what happened, which is a smaller scale of what happened in Italy ("never really happened"), there's no need to do ANYTHING.

 

[Dickc]

Is that a thing that happens?

Remember to use the sarcasm icon, you know, [/sarcasm]

 

[1dog]

I have a feeling you're going to be hearing about this study soon. And that there's going to be a lot of revisionist history among politicians in the coming years.

For those who dont like reading scientific studies, across 10 different nations they found no statistically significant benefit of mandatory lockdown orders on having a beneficial COVID19 effect over that of simple voluntary measures like social distancing or reducing your travel.

Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19​

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484

Alex Berenson, formerly of WSJ has written extensively on this very topic.

 

[1dog]

It helps to have a more successful approach when you have inside knowledge of the virus as you're willingly allowing it to spread around the globe while taking extreme precautions in your own country and lying about it to the rest of the world

Correct - let us ban all inter-country travel from and to Wuhan, but not to other countries . . Jan 1st or possibly Dec 2019

 

[Zermatt]

Correct - let us ban all inter-country travel from and to Wuhan, but not to other countries . . Jan 1st or possibly Dec 2019

Intra-country not inter. That's literally the opposite.

 

[da-bum]

Yes and no.

Most of the Asian countries didn't have a full lockdown like in China. In fact, most countries in Asia kept their schools open.

I wonder if that's where Sweden got the same idea. Sweden's population are more conforming than the rest of Europe. It's quite possible the "other Nordic countries" could have work too.

But Italy? France? Never mind in the US, when you have the highest office holder calling to "pack the churches by Easter". Did Sweden pack their churches on Easter???

From the article: "These observations are consistent with a model where the severity of the risk perceived by individuals was a stronger driver of anti-contagion behaviors than the specific nature of the NPIs"

Translation, those country whose population takes the virus seriously behave better. And the case number shows that.

p.s.
Now I'm beginning to think maybe the Vermonters got it right. The people there took it seriously. So they kept a low case number even when their neighbors' numbers are going up. Maybe I should move up my trip there now. Low case number, snow, skiing, what's not to like?

I didn't want to get into the details of how much action each of the Asian countries took because each one had different reactions, but the main thing is they all took serious actions before it got to the point where lockdown was thought of as the only solution. China, and especiall Wuhan did that because the outbreak got so bad, that was the only option. Their lockdown was literally nobody could go out.

Singapore was successful initially, except they forgot that their migrant workers were people too, which lead to an uncontrollable outbreak, thus forcing them to lock down the dorms.

As for Sweden, I think their chief epidemiologist is more of an ideologue than data scientist. His 'guesstimate' that 30% of Swedes should have immunity, then being surprised that an subsequent antibody study shows it being much lower, then goes on that based on that study, Swedes should achieve herd immunity very soon. It just goes against all science and statistics. His constant justification of no-mask based on at best cherry picked studies, and some epidemiologists indicating his lack of understanding of R number and using terms like community spread vs transmission as a layperson would. I was agnostic toward Sweden and its ways, but never saw any data that backed up whatever they said.

Largely due to being misled by China early on in the pandemic. Perhaps if outside medical officials were allowed in early on, we might have actually seen what was going on and taken a different approach. I'd be willing to bet, you wouldn't see people like Fauci saying it's nothing to worry about and won't be a problem for us. And it could have lead to a much more reasonable and more effective approach than the one we took.

We were already in a lockdown or stay at home order when Italy was going through the peak of their infection curve, and Italy was widely cited as a reason for the measures we took, and what happened in italy never really happened here (perhaps maybe in NYC early on, but not to the extent it happened in Italy)

You are painting China with a broad brush as if the municipal, regional and national government are the same. There were alot of inter-regional conflict and assertion of power going on, not unlike the Trump/Cuomo/Deblasio tussle that was going on. If foreign media covered the US with such obtuse angle, then all you will hear will be the negatives of each governmental office that would make for an extremely sinister, incompetent or irrational story-line.

Trump shut down the US's CDC partnership with China's CDC (an organization that the US trained), effectively blinding us to what is going on there.

Fauci listens mainly looks at the data, along with WHO, which is a international agency that is extremely cautious on its pronouncements and requires extensive evidence before announcing them.

You don't have to look at a country go over the peak to take notice. They were already having heavy hospitalization in early March. DeBlasio was still talking about St
Patrick's day parade going ahead while everbody else were cancelling theirs, including in St Patty's homeand..Ireland. At the exponential rate the virus was spreading, every day of inaction makes a tremendous difference down the road.

 

[abc]

the main thing is they all took serious actions before it got to the point where lockdown was thought of as the only solution. China, and especiall Wuhan did that because the outbreak got so bad, that was the only option. Their lockdown was literally nobody could go out.

You're quite right on that.

In fact, Wuhan was a perfect illustration of "what NOT to do"! The communist party boss clamp down on the doctors who sounded the alarm (only among doctors) to prevent ANY kind of action to be taken. The delay from that "information quarantine" put them on the path that full lockdown was the only destination.

The west have a lot more transparency. So we actually got to see how the deniers resisting the many sensible restrictions early on. And politicians dilly dallying about not willing to make tough decisions like the South Koreans and Singaporeans.

While the cause for the delay were different, the results are exactly the same. No early action == full lockdown a week or two later!

All that study paper had "proved" was there ARE better ways to reduce the spread of the virus! If only it had been done at the right time! (that is, had the paper included countries like Singapore/Taiwan etc, it would have been quite clear).

 

[JimG.]

You folks really need to get out and ski.

 

[abc]

You folks really need to get out and ski.

In case you haven't noticed, there's only very thin man made snow on most mountains!

Yes, I prefer to waste my time talk about Covid than to waste it scrape ice mixed with dirt! (and yes, I went out last week, the bottom of my ski shows )

Let's hope this weekend's storm open up some terrain. There might be less post here and more on the trip report section.