bearister said:
COVID-19: On average, only 6% of actual infections detected worldwide
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-covid-average-actual-infections-worldwide.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-covid-average-actual-infections-worldwide.amp
Unit2Sucks said:
That's terrifying. Is this like Shingles?
bearister said:
I realize the Star is not the Harvard Medical Journal...but:
Scientist in 'Germany's Wuhan' claims coronavirus doesn't spread as easily as thought - Daily Star
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/scientist-germanys-wuhan-claims-coronavirus-21805392
*From Day 1 I never bought government claim masks were not helpful (they needed to stop hoarding) and I have always thought getting it from a smear on surface must be difficult because it seems virtually impossible to keep ahead of the wipe down/sanitize game. My belief is that so many more would be infected if it was easy to contract in this manner (I will continue trying the best I can, however),
Your thoughts on article?
bearister said:bearister said:
I realize the Star is not the Harvard Medical Journal...but:
Scientist in 'Germany's Wuhan' claims coronavirus doesn't spread as easily as thought - Daily Star
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/scientist-germanys-wuhan-claims-coronavirus-21805392
*From Day 1 I never bought government claim masks were not helpful (they needed to stop hoarding) and I have always thought getting it from a smear on surface must be difficult because it seems virtually impossible to keep ahead of the wipe down/sanitize game. My belief is that so many more would be infected if it was easy to contract in this manner (I will continue trying the best I can, however),
Your thoughts on article?
Same German doctor, Professor Hendrik Streeck, as above:
Europe could be close to herd immunity from coronavirus ALREADY
https://mol.im/a/8206831
Stanford researchers are looking into the possibility that coronavirus first hit California undetected last year, much earlier than anyone realized, and was only seen at that time as a particularly nasty and early flu season.
As a result, the theory says, many Californians have already unknowingly been exposed to the coronavirus and have developed immunity to it.
... The Stanford researchers tested 3,200 volunteers at three testing sites in the Bay Area. They are expected to publish the conclusions of their study in several weeks.
https://abc7news.com/health/were-californians-exposed-to-coronavirus-last-year/6091220/
bearister said:
Question of the day: Would Judge Reinhold have issues with social distancing?
Short.Unit2Sucks said:
This is a good example of where the private markets are way ahead of the public markets. From what I'm seeing, public equities are overvalued and have not taken into account the negative impacts of COVID. They are essentially priced to perfection and assume the stimulus is going to eliminate COVID disruption.
I don't buy it.
The choice isn't people or the economy. The medium to long term impact on the economy is dependent on getting through the pandemic as quickly as possible. Opening the economy up will have extremely short term benefits that will be wiped out as outbreaks continue. If we keep everything shut down, we can hit the peak everywhere, have time to work out testing, maybe be on the cusp of a treatment, learn what techniques help stop the spread the best. If we come out too early and hit another outbreak it will be a disaster for the economy.BearNIt said:
Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing
Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing
Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing
Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing
Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing
Without testing on a national basis we are screwed. We need to know who has COVID 19, who doesn't, and who has antibodies? Reopening the country without it means you will have outbreaks again and will cost people their lives. With COVID 19 at this point, you have to make a decision, people or the economy? I have seen first hand how devastating this virus is. Less than 1% of the US population has been tested.
China is a huge country and only one part was significantly impacted. That part is not a location that has a lot of travel to our areas nor do many Chinese people who live here come from that area. Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Guangdong, Hunan, Sichuan all have a total of deaths in single digits and those are where people here come from. Almost all of their deaths were in Hubei. The bulk of British Columbia's Chinese population is from Hong Kong, 1000 miles away from Wu Han. It would be like worrying about people from Oregon because of the virus' impact on New York. The precautions against travel to China were necessary, but there was never a serious threat from the American Chinese community.dimitrig said:bearister said:bearister said:
I realize the Star is not the Harvard Medical Journal...but:
Scientist in 'Germany's Wuhan' claims coronavirus doesn't spread as easily as thought - Daily Star
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/scientist-germanys-wuhan-claims-coronavirus-21805392
*From Day 1 I never bought government claim masks were not helpful (they needed to stop hoarding) and I have always thought getting it from a smear on surface must be difficult because it seems virtually impossible to keep ahead of the wipe down/sanitize game. My belief is that so many more would be infected if it was easy to contract in this manner (I will continue trying the best I can, however),
Your thoughts on article?
Same German doctor, Professor Hendrik Streeck, as above:
Europe could be close to herd immunity from coronavirus ALREADY
https://mol.im/a/8206831
Stanford researchers are looking into the possibility that coronavirus first hit California undetected last year, much earlier than anyone realized, and was only seen at that time as a particularly nasty and early flu season.
As a result, the theory says, many Californians have already unknowingly been exposed to the coronavirus and have developed immunity to it.
... The Stanford researchers tested 3,200 volunteers at three testing sites in the Bay Area. They are expected to publish the conclusions of their study in several weeks.
https://abc7news.com/health/were-californians-exposed-to-coronavirus-last-year/6091220/
California had a really bad flu season last fall and winter. At work it completely blew through many of our employees and their families in a way we rarely see. Unlike COVID-19, though, no one died despite our demographics skewing older. That said, quite a few people one might characterize as workaholics who rarely take sick days missed a week or more of work with nausea, dry cough, and fever. It was also very contagious. Pretty much everyone in the household of a person who had it caught it. A few of those people had also been traveling back and forth to Washington State on business during that period. It was probably just a bad flu season and has nothing to do with COVID-19 but it is worth studying further to be sure.
The part I wonder a lot more about is the the overall lack of positives in the large Chinese population here. One nearby city is over 60% Asian - mostly Chinese - and they travel back and forth to China frequently. I figured that my area would be Ground Zero for the virus. Instead, cases seem to be less than average on a per capita basis - on the order of less than 30 per 100K population. For comparison LA in general is about 3x that at 90 per 100K. Perhaps that is because those people already own and use masks (I usually see at least one person at the grocery store wearing a mask even in better times) but it is surprising to me how low the rate is in the Asian communities which one might think would have been most at risk for undetected community spread given the origin in China. I have also mentioned here that it seems unlikely that large cities in China were not similarly impacted as NYC was - with the virus spreading undetected for a month or more before China started its war on COVID-19. I am really curious to see what these researchers found.
I am also curious about this statement from Professor Gunther Hartmann, a member of the study:
"The 15 per cent is not that far from the 60 per cent we need for herd immunity."
It seems pretty far off to me. 4x as many people would need to be infected. However, I am not an epidemiologist.
Edit: I read that British Columbia with its large Chinese population also has rates about 3x less than the rest of Canada whether that was because of more awareness of what was happening in Asia, larger adoption of masks, or something else. (Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3078875/coronavirus-british-columbia-winning-covid-19-fight)
With Trump in charge, you pretty much know what's going to happen right? (bolded above for the MAGAstani)OaktownBear said:
The choice isn't people or the economy. The medium to long term impact on the economy is dependent on getting through the pandemic as quickly as possible. Opening the economy up will have extremely short term benefits that will be wiped out as outbreaks continue. If we keep everything shut down, we can hit the peak everywhere, have time to work out testing, maybe be on the cusp of a treatment, learn what techniques help stop the spread the best. If we come out too early and hit another outbreak it will be a disaster for the economy.
Also we should be able to start a GRADUAL opening soon. For instance, pro-sports should be able to continue in the coming months as a television only phenomena with consistent testing of players and officials. All this depends on actually having a plan not just stating "All open for business!!!"
OaktownBear said:
China is a huge country and only one part was significantly impacted. That part is not a location that has a lot of travel to our areas nor do many Chinese people who live here come from that area. Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Guangdong, Hunan, Sichuan all have a total of deaths in single digits and those are where people here come from. Almost all of their deaths were in Hubei. The bulk of British Columbia's Chinese population is from Hong Kong, 1000 miles away from Wu Han. It would be like worrying about people from Oregon because of the virus' impact on New York. The precautions against travel to China were necessary, but there was never a serious threat from the American Chinese community.
My neighbors are Chinese and were in China in late January. They came back after re-entry was limited to 5 airports (luckily for them SFO being one). They self quarantined. In retrospect, they are at a greater risk in the Bay Area than anywhere they were in China.
The immediate choice given who is leading the response to this pandemic (The Idiot in Chief) will be presented with a choice that less nuanced than your response, That choice was made easy for him to wrap his warped mind around is the choice of people or the economy. Don't forget that one of the reasons that he chose to back the stay at home guidance was because he was told that he would own the deaths of Americans as the pandemic spread through the US if he did not. It was then that he reluctantly supported the guidance. I would imagine that it will be sometime before people go to sporting events given how the virus is transmitted and the precautions that the different leagues will have to institute and that is why as you correctly point out the games will be televised only.OaktownBear said:The choice isn't people or the economy. The medium to long term impact on the economy is dependent on getting through the pandemic as quickly as possible. Opening the economy up will have extremely short term benefits that will be wiped out as outbreaks continue. If we keep everything shut down, we can hit the peak everywhere, have time to work out testing, maybe be on the cusp of a treatment, learn what techniques help stop the spread the best. If we come out too early and hit another outbreak it will be a disaster for the economy.BearNIt said:
Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing
Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing
Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing
Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing
Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing
Without testing on a national basis we are screwed. We need to know who has COVID 19, who doesn't, and who has antibodies? Reopening the country without it means you will have outbreaks again and will cost people their lives. With COVID 19 at this point, you have to make a decision, people or the economy? I have seen first hand how devastating this virus is. Less than 1% of the US population has been tested.
Also we should be able to start a GRADUAL opening soon. For instance, pro-sports should be able to continue in the coming months as a television only phenomena with consistent testing of players and officials. All this depends on actually having a plan not just stating "All open for business!!!"
You said:dimitrig said:OaktownBear said:
China is a huge country and only one part was significantly impacted. That part is not a location that has a lot of travel to our areas nor do many Chinese people who live here come from that area. Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Guangdong, Hunan, Sichuan all have a total of deaths in single digits and those are where people here come from. Almost all of their deaths were in Hubei. The bulk of British Columbia's Chinese population is from Hong Kong, 1000 miles away from Wu Han. It would be like worrying about people from Oregon because of the virus' impact on New York. The precautions against travel to China were necessary, but there was never a serious threat from the American Chinese community.
My neighbors are Chinese and were in China in late January. They came back after re-entry was limited to 5 airports (luckily for them SFO being one). They self quarantined. In retrospect, they are at a greater risk in the Bay Area than anywhere they were in China.
Just because China is big doesn't mean that COVID-19 could not quickly spread everywhere. The US is big, too, and yet it is even in our rural states and communities to an extent that densely populated places in China like Hong Kong never experienced.
Regardless, the fact remains that the heavily Asian communities here in the US and Canada seem to have weathered this better than average when compared to nearby cities. Koreatown, Arcadia, Monterey Park, San Gabriel are all doing better than Van Nuys, Inglewood, Woodland Hills, even Palmdale. Awareness (having lived through SARS) is probably a big part of it, but it would not surprise me if there is already some level of immunity in those communities.
BTW, I have some Korean colleagues who told me that everyone they know who was able to go to Korea has gone to wait this out there.
If they aren't traveling to Wuhan, which they aren't because there aren't close ties to Wuhan, why would you expect your area to be Ground Zero? The areas the Chinese in your community are connected to were barely hit by the virus. And why would you think British Columbia would be hit when their Chinese community is mostly from Hong Kong which was barely touched by the virus?Quote:
The part I wonder a lot more about is the the overall lack of positives in the large Chinese population here. One nearby city is over 60% Asian - mostly Chinese - and they travel back and forth to China frequently. I figured that my area would be Ground Zero for the virus.
OaktownBear said:
You said:If they aren't traveling to Wuhan, which they aren't because there aren't close ties to Wuhan, why would you expect your area to be Ground Zero? The areas the Chinese in your community are connected to were barely hit by the virus. And why would you think British Columbia would be hit when their Chinese community is mostly from Hong Kong which was barely touched by the virus?Quote:
The part I wonder a lot more about is the the overall lack of positives in the large Chinese population here. One nearby city is over 60% Asian - mostly Chinese - and they travel back and forth to China frequently. I figured that my area would be Ground Zero for the virus.
Milan, for instance, does a lot of business with Wuhan. There was good reason to believe that would be a problem not because of any Chinese community there but because there is travel back and forth. There was no reason to think the same of California with few ties to Wuhan. Again, if you had a community of people from Oregon who travel all the time to Oregon, you wouldn't be concerned. If you had a community of people from New York, you would be concerned. There's no difference. Bottom line, you thought your area would be ground zero because you weren't distinguishing Wuhan from the rest of China.
