COVID-19 Megathread 3: Third time's a charm

[GeorgiaModerate]

What Georgia’s mayors and county leaders were told about the pandemic.

On Tuesday, we told you that the Georgia Municipal Association had recommended that all 538 cities in the state declare public health care emergencies in an effort to tamp down the coronavirus pandemic.

The GMA did so after a Monday afternoon online presentation by Dr. Carlos del Rio, the executive associate dean for Emory at Grady Health System, aimed at mayors, city managers, county commission chairs and county managers across the state.

The article embeds the PowerPoint presentation used and has a link to the audio recording.  I've read the presentation and it's well worth a look.

What's the buzz been around the coronavirus down in Georgia, GM?

Don't hear a ton about it. 

It seems to be a mix between those who are taking it very seriously and those who think it's nothing to worry about and/or a hoax.  (As you might expect, there's a high correlation between the latter view and Trump support.)  Most cities, counties, and the state have taken some actions, but I worry that they've been too little and too late.  In particular, I'm concerned that the city of Atlanta will become the next hot spot.  The mayor ordered shelter in place earlier this week, but it's already been reported that ICU beds in the city are near capacity.

Georgia school systems have moved online until the end of March, with spring break following the first week of April.  At present, many have plans to reopen the schools after that (although I suspect this will change).

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/1242896128057782275

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/03/25/health/coronavirus-death-peak-three-weeks-epidemiologist/index.html

A leading epidemiologist advising the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated the peak of deaths in the US coronavirus pandemic will be three weeks from now, after which "most of the damage will be done," and says it may be possible to only isolate the vulnerable, allowing many back to work.

The CDC confirmed that Ira Longini, professor at the Center for Statistics and Quantitative Infectious Diseases at the University of Florida, is a "funded partner." The agency said he works with them on Covid-19 modeling.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/03/25/health/coronavirus-death-peak-three-weeks-epidemiologist/index.html

A leading epidemiologist advising the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated the peak of deaths in the US coronavirus pandemic will be three weeks from now, after which "most of the damage will be done," and says it may be possible to only isolate the vulnerable, allowing many back to work.

The CDC confirmed that Ira Longini, professor at the Center for Statistics and Quantitative Infectious Diseases at the University of Florida, is a "funded partner." The agency said he works with them on Covid-19 modeling.

Easter is in 18 days. In 2 weeks will get much more data = much more precise models.

Longini's suggestion that US deaths could peak in less than a month will have two possible impacts. First, a sudden surge in deaths risks overwhelming health care systems that are currently struggling to prepare for cases needing intensive care. Secondly and conversely, it could support calls -- echoed by President Trump -- to reduce restrictions on movement in the coming weeks.

Longini said: "I would guess the US will hit a peak in deaths in the next two-three weeks, as the doubling time seems to be about two-three days." He added: "Maybe a partial lifting of the shelter-in-place for those less vulnerable may make some sense, in about three weeks. By then, much of the damage will have been done."

Asked if there could be a risk of a relapse when the virus circulated again in the following weeks, he said: "If it were limited, and we continued to protect the most vulnerable, that may be acceptable for now. Also, let's see what happens in the next two-three weeks. We can also keep an eye on China as they begin to relax restrictions there."

In month, you'll probably start to ease restrictions in some places. But hey, lets attack a straw man "Orange man's trying to kill your Grandma for Dow" 

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/thehowie/status/1242862406650470400

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1242901799641780225

[President Johnson]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/03/25/health/coronavirus-death-peak-three-weeks-epidemiologist/index.html

A leading epidemiologist advising the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated the peak of deaths in the US coronavirus pandemic will be three weeks from now, after which "most of the damage will be done," and says it may be possible to only isolate the vulnerable, allowing many back to work.

The CDC confirmed that Ira Longini, professor at the Center for Statistics and Quantitative Infectious Diseases at the University of Florida, is a "funded partner." The agency said he works with them on Covid-19 modeling.

Three weeks seems a pretty short period of time. This assumes the virus will basically spread uncontrolled and just run through whole country? Pandemics usually "end" after 60-70% of population are infected if there are no effective measures to halt the spread otherwise (like vaccine). Even if mortality is just 1%, the hard number of deaths would be extremely high and result into a humanitarian disaster. Not to mention the death rate would increase as a result of a collapsing medical system. This effect was seen in China before, since mortality in Wuhan itsself was over 3%, while it stood at 0.7% in the rest of China.

[Tintrlvr]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/03/25/health/coronavirus-death-peak-three-weeks-epidemiologist/index.html

A leading epidemiologist advising the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated the peak of deaths in the US coronavirus pandemic will be three weeks from now, after which "most of the damage will be done," and says it may be possible to only isolate the vulnerable, allowing many back to work.

The CDC confirmed that Ira Longini, professor at the Center for Statistics and Quantitative Infectious Diseases at the University of Florida, is a "funded partner." The agency said he works with them on Covid-19 modeling.

Three weeks seems a pretty short period of time. This assumes the virus will basically spread uncontrolled and just run through whole country? Pandemics usually "end" after 60-70% of population are infected if there are no effective measures to halt the spread otherwise (like vaccine). Even if mortality is just 1%, the hard number of deaths would be extremely high and result into a humanitarian disaster. Not to mention the death rate would increase as a result of a collapsing medical system. This effect was seen in China before, since mortality in Wuhan itsself was over 3%, while it stood at 0.7% in the rest of China.

The death rate in Wuhan was not higher, they just didn't test mild cases because the capacity to test was overwhelmed. They dropped contact tracing and trying to identify mild cases in favor of making the default assumption that anyone in Wuhan showing any symptom had the illness but only reported serious cases (that either tested positively or were clinically diagnosed because of pneumonia/shortness of breath/other serious symptoms). Whereas in the rest of China they did extensive contact tracing and tested everyone who came into contact with another case, even if they didn't show any symptoms.

There were at least 250,000 cases in Wuhan, just most were never tested. Whereas the total case rate in the rest of China is probably reasonably accurate.

Anyway, the idea is that you stop transmission through isolation, then let the virus burn through existing cases for a while (maybe a few weeks is too short, but a month to a month and a half is almost certainly enough), and then you can release everyone other than the most vulnerable because the total number of active (not recovered) cases is very low and you can trace and manage from there.

This is exactly what China did.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

https://twitter.com/thehowie/status/1242862406650470400

A <1% drop in cases (5249–>5210) is “MUCH better news”???  A week ago, Italy was only seeing about 3000 cases/day, and this was already more than a week into their lockdown.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

https://twitter.com/MyPillowUSA/status/1242539912626397184

[President Johnson]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/03/25/health/coronavirus-death-peak-three-weeks-epidemiologist/index.html

A leading epidemiologist advising the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated the peak of deaths in the US coronavirus pandemic will be three weeks from now, after which "most of the damage will be done," and says it may be possible to only isolate the vulnerable, allowing many back to work.

The CDC confirmed that Ira Longini, professor at the Center for Statistics and Quantitative Infectious Diseases at the University of Florida, is a "funded partner." The agency said he works with them on Covid-19 modeling.

Three weeks seems a pretty short period of time. This assumes the virus will basically spread uncontrolled and just run through whole country? Pandemics usually "end" after 60-70% of population are infected if there are no effective measures to halt the spread otherwise (like vaccine). Even if mortality is just 1%, the hard number of deaths would be extremely high and result into a humanitarian disaster. Not to mention the death rate would increase as a result of a collapsing medical system. This effect was seen in China before, since mortality in Wuhan itsself was over 3%, while it stood at 0.7% in the rest of China.

The death rate in Wuhan was not higher, they just didn't test mild cases, whereas in the rest of China they did extensive contact tracing and tested everyone who came into contact with another case, even if they didn't show any symptoms.

The death rate in Wuhan city, the epicenter of the outbreak, was higher, I've read this multiple times in newspapers. The hospitals in the city itsself de facto collapsed in the early weeks of the pandemic, which resulted into more deaths than elsewhere in China. The actual mortality is definitely lower than the said numbers due to unreported/very mild cases.

If you look at the numbers in this Wikipedia table, the death rate in Wuhan is actually higher than the surrounding cities. The "official" number here is even 5% (about 2,500 deaths out of 50,000 cases).

[GP270watch]

 The fact Italy is not doubling after x numbers of days and appears to be flatlining could be a very good sign. They have to reach a plateau before they start trending down.

 Spain is using an ice skating rink as a morgue because the regular morgue is way beyond normal capacity.

[Tintrlvr]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/03/25/health/coronavirus-death-peak-three-weeks-epidemiologist/index.html

A leading epidemiologist advising the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated the peak of deaths in the US coronavirus pandemic will be three weeks from now, after which "most of the damage will be done," and says it may be possible to only isolate the vulnerable, allowing many back to work.

The CDC confirmed that Ira Longini, professor at the Center for Statistics and Quantitative Infectious Diseases at the University of Florida, is a "funded partner." The agency said he works with them on Covid-19 modeling.

Three weeks seems a pretty short period of time. This assumes the virus will basically spread uncontrolled and just run through whole country? Pandemics usually "end" after 60-70% of population are infected if there are no effective measures to halt the spread otherwise (like vaccine). Even if mortality is just 1%, the hard number of deaths would be extremely high and result into a humanitarian disaster. Not to mention the death rate would increase as a result of a collapsing medical system. This effect was seen in China before, since mortality in Wuhan itsself was over 3%, while it stood at 0.7% in the rest of China.

The death rate in Wuhan was not higher, they just didn't test mild cases, whereas in the rest of China they did extensive contact tracing and tested everyone who came into contact with another case, even if they didn't show any symptoms.

The death rate in Wuhan city, the epicenter of the outbreak, was higher, I've read this multiple times in newspapers. The hospitals in the city itsself de facto collapsed in the early weeks of the pandemic, which resulted into more deaths than elsewhere in China. The actual mortality is definitely lower than the said numbers due to unreported/very mild cases.

If you look at the numbers in this Wikipedia table, the death rate in Wuhan is actually higher than the surrounding cities. The "official" number here is even 5% (about 2,500 deaths out of 50,000 cases).

Again, this is because the media is not very sophisticated when it comes to this sort of thing and
blithely reports the death rate as the number of reported deaths divided by the number of reported cases. But the number of reported cases is vastly understated in Wuhan compared to total number of cases, and that is much more true in Wuhan than elsewhere because Wuhan stopped bothering to count mild cases early on.

This also explains different death rates in different countries: South Korea's death rate looks very low in significant part because they tested an enormous number of people and found all or nearly all of their cases, whereas countries like Italy and Spain are not testing enough to find anywhere close to every case and so show a much higher death rate relative to cases (but actually just have a lot of unreported cases).

[Xing]

https://twitter.com/thehowie/status/1242862406650470400

A <1% drop in cases (5249–>5210) is “MUCH better news”???  A week ago, Italy was only seeing about 3000 cases/day, and this was already more than a week into their lockdown.

I think the “good news” is that growth in Italy seems to be becoming increasingly linear rather than exponential. A low bar, sure, but it suggests that they could be turning the tide. The U.S., on the other hand...

[Person Man]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/last-minute-complaints-threaten-dollar2t-senate-coronavirus-emergency-aid/ar-BB11HPnj?li=BBnb7Kz

Sasse is pulling a Pelosi.

[Freshly-touched grass]

https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1242896476872806402
https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/1242902494801539073
Go Bernie!

[Green Line]

I guess Bernie's thought process is that plunging the country into an even deeper depression will help him in the remaining primaries if enough people are out of work at that point.

[GP270watch]

I hope Bernie's call spurs momentum and more Democrats join him into sinking this awful bill.

[Mr. Morden]

I don't understand the conflict exactly.  Four GOP Senators object to language in the bill.  Are they going to actually hold up a vote on it?  If not, then hold the vote, and presumably it'll pass even without their votes.  If yes, then what is the nature of Sanders's counter-threat?  If the bill is already being blocked anyway, then Sanders saying that he will also hold it up for different reasons doesn't seem like it means anything?  Or is he saying that he will hold it up *if* the bill is amended in order to mollify those 4 GOP Senators?

[Meclazine for Israel]

Here is one of the first videos of an Australian man, Tim McLean, reporting via video from the streets of Wuhan as he goes outside shopping for food after a long isolation period having been quarantined for over 60 days.

Is not Wuhan, Wuhan is close

No, that is Wuhan. Literally ground zero.

https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/6666548/coronavirus-lockdown-south-coast-man-says-hes-safer-in-wuhan-than-australia/

[Devout Centrist]

I don't understand the conflict exactly.  Four GOP Senators object to language in the bill.  Are they going to actually hold up a vote on it?  If not, then hold the vote, and presumably it'll pass even without their votes.  If yes, then what is the nature of Sanders's counter-threat?  If the bill is already being blocked anyway, then Sanders saying that he will also hold it up for different reasons doesn't seem like it means anything?  Or is he saying that he will hold it up *if* the bill is amended in order to mollify those 4 GOP Senators?

I take it that McConnell and Schumer want unanimous consent so they can get out of dodge ASAP

[Mr. Morden]

I don't understand the conflict exactly.  Four GOP Senators object to language in the bill.  Are they going to actually hold up a vote on it?  If not, then hold the vote, and presumably it'll pass even without their votes.  If yes, then what is the nature of Sanders's counter-threat?  If the bill is already being blocked anyway, then Sanders saying that he will also hold it up for different reasons doesn't seem like it means anything?  Or is he saying that he will hold it up *if* the bill is amended in order to mollify those 4 GOP Senators?

I take it that McConnell and Schumer want unanimous consent so they can get out of dodge ASAP

Right, but if Sanders is suggesting that he'll block unanimous consent if and only if the 4 GOP Senators are also blocking unanimous consent, then aren't Sanders's actions superfluous?  What's his role in this?

[FrancoAgo]

Here is one of the first videos of an Australian man, Tim McLean, reporting via video from the streets of Wuhan as he goes outside shopping for food after a long isolation period having been quarantined for over 60 days.

Is not Wuhan, Wuhan is close

No, that is Wuhan. Literally ground zero.

https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/6666548/coronavirus-lockdown-south-coast-man-says-hes-safer-in-wuhan-than-australia/

Tim McLean live in Ezhou, Wuhan will open the 8th April

[Mr. Reactionary]

I guess Bernie's thought process is that plunging the country into an even deeper depression will help him in the remaining primaries if enough people are out of work at that point.

I imagine Bernie is of the Marxist view that its better for everyone to be miserable instead of just some of us because muh equality. The view that says its actually good if everyone is a lot poorer as long as the gap between rich and poor shrinks.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1242901799641780225

Some pretty sinister forms of triage are emerging from this in general. Apparently there's some protocol in New York to actually take ventilators away from patients who were on them previously to give them to COVID patients. Although I only saw one source for that and it was in a conservative-leaning Catholic publication so they probably have some amount of bias against Cuomo and his administration.