COVID-19 Megathread 6: Return of the Omicron

[jimrtex]

One of the real apparent learnings from this is you cannot trust people to regulate themself in a crisis.

Australia knocks on the doors of the homes of people isolating after they test positive to COVID-19.

Around 25-30% are not at home. They go back to work, at the gym, go shopping.

So that means that one third of people, once infected are not concerned about others getting infected. Once infected, their psychology flips to 'active infector'. Think about that carefully. Until you are infected, you cannot imagine thinking that way.

Now out of your two points, Government control in this pandemic is the only option. Removal of infected subjects from the population is a very very effective tool to stop community transmission.

Australia should transport all infected to the Gold Coast, and pay their salary while on their holiday. They can come back when they test negative.

Since everyone would be infected, there would be no harm in going to the gym, shopping, or even working remotely.

[jimrtex]

I think it was possible to keep schools reopened even if wasn't the greatest idea, However doing it with 0 restrictions was stupid.

The main changes that really need to be made in schools is better ventilation and better access to sinks. I'm the biggest germaphobe in the world, but I don't think kids need to go to school in a hazmat suit.

There's no way schools will be safe when community transmission is so widespread. Until new case numbers are pushed down to a low level, most activities will be too risky.

Are you suggesting that all school districts should consider going fully online for the fall semester? I am only beginning to imagine the consequences that will have for many families and students across the country. Of course, opening schools "normally" and in-person is fraught with its own difficulties, so we have a truly tough situation here.

Students (parents) should be given an option of in-person (traditional) schools, on-line charter schools, charter and private schools, cottage schools, home schooling, or no schooling.

Traditional schools should determine their capacity (teachers willing to work, class sizing, etc.). If more students want to attend than space is available, then oldest students in each grade are given priority.

Public schools should pay for students choosing on-line charter schools, charter and private schools, cottage schools, or home schooling.

For students choosing no schooling, taxes would be reduced.

[jimrtex]

I think it was possible to keep schools reopened even if wasn't the greatest idea, However doing it with 0 restrictions was stupid.

The main changes that really need to be made in schools is better ventilation and better access to sinks. I'm the biggest germaphobe in the world, but I don't think kids need to go to school in a hazmat suit.

There's no way schools will be safe when community transmission is so widespread. Until new case numbers are pushed down to a low level, most activities will be too risky.

Are you suggesting that all school districts should consider going fully online for the fall semester? I am only beginning to imagine the consequences that will have for many families and students across the country. Of course, opening schools "normally" and in-person is fraught with its own difficulties, so we have a truly tough situation here.

Students (parents) should be given an option of in-person (traditional) schools, on-line charter schools, charter and private schools, cottage schools, home schooling, or no schooling.

Traditional schools should determine their capacity (teachers willing to work, class sizing, etc.). If more students want to attend than space is available, then oldest students in each grade are given priority.

Public schools should pay for students choosing on-line charter schools, charter and private schools, cottage schools, or home schooling.

For students choosing no schooling, taxes would be reduced.

Paying people to be illiterate?

Not levying taxes for services not provided.

Let's say a school district has 10,000 children of school age 5-17. They assess taxes to raise $7000 per student, or a total of $70M.

They are able to provide in-person schooling for 5000 willing students. 2000 choose on-line charter schools, 1000 choose private or charter schools, and 1000 choose to home school. 1000 prefer to defer education until they believe in-person schooling is safe, and don't like the alternatives.

So taxes are assessed for 9000 students.

[jimrtex]

I think it was possible to keep schools reopened even if wasn't the greatest idea, However doing it with 0 restrictions was stupid.

The main changes that really need to be made in schools is better ventilation and better access to sinks. I'm the biggest germaphobe in the world, but I don't think kids need to go to school in a hazmat suit.

There's no way schools will be safe when community transmission is so widespread. Until new case numbers are pushed down to a low level, most activities will be too risky.

Are you suggesting that all school districts should consider going fully online for the fall semester? I am only beginning to imagine the consequences that will have for many families and students across the country. Of course, opening schools "normally" and in-person is fraught with its own difficulties, so we have a truly tough situation here.

Students (parents) should be given an option of in-person (traditional) schools, on-line charter schools, charter and private schools, cottage schools, home schooling, or no schooling.

Traditional schools should determine their capacity (teachers willing to work, class sizing, etc.). If more students want to attend than space is available, then oldest students in each grade are given priority.

Public schools should pay for students choosing on-line charter schools, charter and private schools, cottage schools, or home schooling.

For students choosing no schooling, taxes would be reduced.

Paying people to be illiterate?

Not levying taxes for services not provided.

Let's say a school district has 10,000 children of school age 5-17. They assess taxes to raise $7000 per student, or a total of $70M.

They are able to provide in-person schooling for 5000 willing students. 2000 choose on-line charter schools, 1000 choose private or charter schools, and 1000 choose to home school. 1000 prefer to defer education until they believe in-person schooling is safe, and don't like the alternatives.

So taxes are assessed for 9000 students.

That’s not how public goods work.

How so?

[jimrtex]

I think it was possible to keep schools reopened even if wasn't the greatest idea, However doing it with 0 restrictions was stupid.

The main changes that really need to be made in schools is better ventilation and better access to sinks. I'm the biggest germaphobe in the world, but I don't think kids need to go to school in a hazmat suit.

There's no way schools will be safe when community transmission is so widespread. Until new case numbers are pushed down to a low level, most activities will be too risky.

Are you suggesting that all school districts should consider going fully online for the fall semester? I am only beginning to imagine the consequences that will have for many families and students across the country. Of course, opening schools "normally" and in-person is fraught with its own difficulties, so we have a truly tough situation here.

Students (parents) should be given an option of in-person (traditional) schools, on-line charter schools, charter and private schools, cottage schools, home schooling, or no schooling.

Traditional schools should determine their capacity (teachers willing to work, class sizing, etc.). If more students want to attend than space is available, then oldest students in each grade are given priority.

Public schools should pay for students choosing on-line charter schools, charter and private schools, cottage schools, or home schooling.

For students choosing no schooling, taxes would be reduced.

Paying people to be illiterate?

Not levying taxes for services not provided.

Let's say a school district has 10,000 children of school age 5-17. They assess taxes to raise $7000 per student, or a total of $70M.

They are able to provide in-person schooling for 5000 willing students. 2000 choose on-line charter schools, 1000 choose private or charter schools, and 1000 choose to home school. 1000 prefer to defer education until they believe in-person schooling is safe, and don't like the alternatives.

So taxes are assessed for 9000 students.

That’s not how public goods work.

How so?

Public goods are things that you can’t just make for certain people because there is no effective or desirable way to exclude people from the good or service.

If you are unable to provide that service, then there is no excuse to charge those who are funding the service.

[jimrtex]

I think it was possible to keep schools reopened even if wasn't the greatest idea, However doing it with 0 restrictions was stupid.

The main changes that really need to be made in schools is better ventilation and better access to sinks. I'm the biggest germaphobe in the world, but I don't think kids need to go to school in a hazmat suit.

There's no way schools will be safe when community transmission is so widespread. Until new case numbers are pushed down to a low level, most activities will be too risky.

Are you suggesting that all school districts should consider going fully online for the fall semester? I am only beginning to imagine the consequences that will have for many families and students across the country. Of course, opening schools "normally" and in-person is fraught with its own difficulties, so we have a truly tough situation here.

Students (parents) should be given an option of in-person (traditional) schools, on-line charter schools, charter and private schools, cottage schools, home schooling, or no schooling.

Traditional schools should determine their capacity (teachers willing to work, class sizing, etc.). If more students want to attend than space is available, then oldest students in each grade are given priority.

Public schools should pay for students choosing on-line charter schools, charter and private schools, cottage schools, or home schooling.

For students choosing no schooling, taxes would be reduced.

Paying people to be illiterate?

Not levying taxes for services not provided.

Let's say a school district has 10,000 children of school age 5-17. They assess taxes to raise $7000 per student, or a total of $70M.

They are able to provide in-person schooling for 5000 willing students. 2000 choose on-line charter schools, 1000 choose private or charter schools, and 1000 choose to home school. 1000 prefer to defer education until they believe in-person schooling is safe, and don't like the alternatives.

So taxes are assessed for 9000 students.

That’s not how public goods work.

How so?

Public goods are things that you can’t just make for certain people because there is no effective or desirable way to exclude people from the good or service.

If you are unable to provide that service, then there is no excuse to charge those who are funding the service.

Why would only people who choose not to send their kids to school get a tax rebate?  What about all the people who don’t have school age children?  Why are we making them pay for public schools now when they don’t use them?

You misunderstood what I wrote.

School districts serve two functions:

(1) Tax Collection. Taxes are collected regardless of the services provided to the individual taxpayer.

They assess the value of each property, typically on its "sale value".

Tax Collector (TC): How much would you sell your house for?
Ordinary Decent Citizen (ODC): It's not for sale. I like living here. There are good schools.
TC: I know you don't want to sell it, I just need to figure out how much your house is worth so we can charge a tax-based on a sale's price.
ODC: So it's a sales tax?
TC: Not at all.
ODC: What if I don't pay the tax?
TC: We will sell your house. The sheriff will move you and your possessions out into the street. You will get any left over cash after paying off the mortgage.

(2) Education Provider.

Ordinarily they provide in-person education to any student in the district to attend a public or charter school. But they might be able to do so safely, or some students (parents) may not believe it is safe.

So there may be on-line classes. But if on-line classes were such a good idea, they would be used all the time. You eliminate the cost of school buildings and transportation. But they aren't or many parents and teachers don't think they are.

It would be as if the government was providing food, and they were using sawdust as filler. They would be providing an adulterated product. You would not want your tax dollars going for such a product even if you never ate it.

So let students (parents) choose the type of education: in-person public or charter school; on-line charter; private school; cottage or home school.

The tax dollars go to the actual provider. As a taxpayer, you really don't care how the education is provided. But if there is no suitable education service (in-person schools have insufficient capacity due to safety concerns or lack of teachers or staff; or students (parents) don't want to go on-line, then let the students drop out temporarily. Since the educational services aren't being provided, reduce the taxes collected proportionately.

Eventually ... there may be sufficient capacity for in-persons education and the taxes can be restored.

[jimrtex]

University of Georgia health faculty: Campus is in "grave danger".

If 4% of students are currently infected, what percentage of students have been previously infected and have developed resistance to future infection?

[jimrtex]

Interesting poll results here:

https://twitter.com/ArgoJournal/status/1298639971730051072

Looks like Black women and Latinas are going hard for Trump.

[jimrtex]

So they want us to believe 50% of people who went to Sturgis got covid.

And people wonder why I don't trust the media. As if their 40 years of Big Pharma apologia wasn't enough of a reason.

No...

They are saying that there are a quarter million cases connected to Sturgis. So if you went there, got COVID, came back home and infected people, and then they infected more people, and so on, all of those cases are included in the count, even though only 1 person went to Sturgis, as they presumably wouldn't have happened without the rally.

There have been around 100 cases that have been traced to Sturgis.

[jimrtex]

So I think we have all heard how the Sturgis motorcycle rally proved to be a super-spreader event -for comparison's sake, have there been any updated figures on the impact of Black Lives Matter protests on the spread of COVID-19?  The only articles I can find on the subject are from late June into early July, which all say that the protests somehow did not become super-spreader events.  Welcome as the news was, I thought it was a bit early at the time to be drawing those conclusions.  It's been more than two months now since then.  Has anything changed?

That was a model (theory). It has not been proven by actual observation.

[jimrtex]

As thousands of people are dying, the virus truthers are trying to go off on a tangent about whether or not Sturgis caused Covid.
Stop letting them shift the narrative, this is what they want. They want you to get into these side arguments and ignore the big picture.

The families of the deceased or the permanently disabled don’t care about whether some model is correct or not. We are still facing a catastrophe, and the truthers want you to ignore that.

It was Covid catastrophists such as yourself who were pushing a narrative that Orange Man supporting bikers were causing a superspreader event at Sturgis. After being infected, when they returned home they actually rode their Harleys into grandma's nursing home and coughed on her. "Taste some or your own medicine Granny", the Hells Angel hellion roared. "I can't taste anything. Did you finally take a bath, grandson, I can't smell a thing either."

If the sky were really falling, we would be covered in sticky blue goo.

[jimrtex]

Grocery stores seem to be pretty much masked up (even though we have no mask mandate in my county), but it kind of feels like a front because grocery stores are really the only place people actually seem to be wearing them.  Although, I suppose you could make an argument that everyone has to eat, but by choosing to go to some other place, you are implicitly accepting the (small) increase in risk.

If you are at high risk (75+) you've probably figured out how to get groceries delivered to you, or have someone else get your groceries.

If you at moderately high risk, the only place you go to is the grocery store and the drug store. You and everyone else is going up and down the aisles, so there is actually a lot of close contact not to mention all the fondling of the fruit and cans of tuna, so you have a lot of feedback from others even if you are young and stupid.

[jimrtex]

We survived similar global pandemics in 1957-58 and 1968-69 that no one even talks about today. 

First off, unlike COVID-19, those were influenza pandemics where a good portion of the population had some protection from exposure to other strains.  Also, in both cases, vaccines were available within months. If we'd been able to follow the vaccine development timeline of either of those prior pandemics, we'd have been deploying a coronavirus vaccine this past summer. (To be fair, the speed of vaccine development then was due to prior work on influenza vaccines in general, and if the current pandemic was an influenza virus rather than a coronavirus, we'd probably have had a vaccine widely available by this past summer.)

Second, for better or worse, society today has a lower tolerance for risk than it did fifty years ago, in large part because of the success we've had in dealing with viral diseases. When dying from a virus is rare, people understandably are going to be more freaked out by the possibility than when it's not that uncommon.

The 1957-1958 pandemic was a new strain which many persons had no experience with. It appears that there is a memory aspect to immune response, and people respond to the strain they first encountered - they are fighting the last war. The population was less than 1/2 the 2020 population and deaths were about 1/2.

[jimrtex]

On that list you post, the US as a whole is easily the least densely populated country.

Argentina has actually the lowest population density in that list

EDIT: even Brazil has a lowest population density than the US

Brazil doesn't really count as large swaths of the country are virtually uninhabited.

A more meaningful metric would be average density per person. Take the population within a certain radius of an individual (10 miles say), sum these values for all persons and divide by the total number of persons.

[jimrtex]

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1321466255124033537

Positivity rates in New York and New Jersey were over 50% in April, and testing is up, not down.

[jimrtex]

What is the source for the claim that testing has decreased?  

It is true that positivity rate has increased.  But according the Covid Tracking Project and the Johns Hopkins tracker, testing is also still increasing this week as it has been for the last 6-8 weeks.



https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states

It's possible he is looking state-by-state. For example, while New York has massively increased testing in the past month, it is not the location of a major outbreak at the moment. And Rhode Island just this week passed the threshold of being the first state to have (over the course of the pandemic) undertaken more coronavirus tests than there are residents in the state. But many of the states with the highest new case rates have much, much lower testing rates than the top-tier testing states.

Testing increases when there is more likelihood of infection.

If there are 5000 active cases per million you start seeing pressure on hospitals, as 500 of those may require hospitalization, displacing other patients, and requiring greater isolation to prevent patients, doctors, nurses, etc. being infected in the hospital.

5000 active cases corresponds to about 300 new cases per day (assumptions: 90% non-hospitalized with 14 days for infection to clear; 10% hospitalized, with 28 days for infection to clear, or patient to die).

If all 1 million were tested, 300/1000000 equals 0.03% would be positive (not 3% but 3/100 of 1%).

If 10,000 were tested that would result in 3% positivity, and would represent around 33 possible contacts for each newly infected.

But you might not have 33 potential contacts unless you lived in NYC and rode the subway. If everyone in your immediate family is tested, their positivity rate is likely to be way over 50%. Positivity is sky high in meat-packing plants where the employees also commute together and live together. It is also very high in prisons.

If infection rates are low, testing will mostly be done on persons in hospitals for other reasons, as well as doctors, nurses, etc., who are likely to be repeatedly tested (students at the University of Vermont are being tested weekly.

If you are doing pregnancy tests, and exclude males, and females over 50 and under 15, the positivity rate will be higher, and higher still if other risk (causal) factors are taken into account. It will be close to 100% if symptomatic females are tested.

[jimrtex]

Again, the fact we don’t have a mask mandate everywhere in the US which is strictly enforced is outrageous. There is no economic harm from a mask mandate, and it greatly will reduce our transmission.

How would you enforce it?

[jimrtex]

Again, the fact we don’t have a mask mandate everywhere in the US which is strictly enforced is outrageous. There is no economic harm from a mask mandate, and it greatly will reduce our transmission.

How would you enforce it?

Fine people who don't follow the requirements.

Who would impose the fine?

What would happen if someone refused to pay the fine?

[jimrtex]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/11/09/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-effective/

In Pfizer’s 44,000-person trial, there have so far been 94 cases of covid-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus, in people who were not previously infected. Fewer than nine of those cases were among people who received two shots of the vaccine, a strong signal of efficacy.

Even if only the placebo group is getting infected, 94 cases out of a 44,000 person trial seems like a shockingly low number of infections, considering over 1% of the whole US population has been confirmed infected within the last two months, and everyone in the trial is being regularly tested.

What time period?

OK there press release says that enrollment began on July 27, but only 89% have received the second dose which is administered 21 days after the first (it is not clear whether this is because of failure to complete the trial or just have not had time to do so). They are still continuing enrollment.

So the maximum period is a little over two months (July 27 + 21 days to second shot + 7 days to effectiveness = August 24, or 2+ months ago).

Making up an entirely baseless guess, let's say 1 month. But perhaps not. They anticipate reaching 162 cases by the 3rd week in November, so maybe 30 more per week?

85/21,769 = 0.39% over one month, which would correspond to 2.4% over around 6 months where COVID-19 has been widely available.

Testing is both in the US and international, I don't know the distribution.

If you were being tested weekly, you would likely be more cautious in your behavior. Also assume that those who have been infected have been somewhat more constrained in there behavior (on average).

Add P.S. Moderna was planning on releasing data when infections reached 53, but will be based on many more because of recent uptick in cases over past few weeks. This suggests persons given the placebo in September and early October are already being infected.

[jimrtex]

https://mobile.twitter.com/keribla/status/1325914300096110592

So much less than among (D) Cuomo's retirement homes?


Pretty clear it is because of higher share of elderly people in this particular prison.

It is a geriatric unit. The average age of the deceased was 72. Infections were in June. Lots of the sentences appear to be essentially life in prison.

[jimrtex]

(snip)

The reluctance some people have toward trusting this administration with guaranteeing the safety of a vaccine can be traced directly to Trump's pushing of hydroxychloroquine despite the fact that there was no evidence that it helps, as well as the whole fiasco of suggesting treating people with disinfectants - or "injecting bleach" as it became known in the popular shorthand. You can't unring the bell of crossing into such blatant medical quackery, and this is why he never should have been on television pretending to give out medical advice. If he had just shut his stupid mouth and let the medical experts lead, there wouldn't be major fears about the vaccine.

1) It is still a conspiracy to think that Trump would somehow get CDS & Big Pharma to approve a vaccine they otherwise wouldn't. I hope you agree?
2) Democrats could easily dispel this conspiracy theories or "fears" as you put it. They didn't. It was more like they riding the conspiracy/fears wave.
2) As you see, Blacks are waaaay more likely to restrain from taking a vaccine despite being most vulnerable demographics. They also happen to trust Dem Party more than others. See the pattern here? Among Asians 70% would take vs 29 among Blacks! Asians ar not "fearful".

It will be hilarious if the vaccine takes off right after Biden gets inaugurated.

It would be a lot like the Iran hostage crisis being resolved right after Reagan was sworn in.

Very hilarious, indeed. Besides the fact that the sooner people get vaccinated, the more will be saved. But Orange Bad would get mad!

Ever heard of the Tuskegee experiment?

Started under FDR, ended under Nixon.

[jimrtex]

Which county in the US has the highest death rate per capita?

Gove County, Kansas (pop. 2,600) has recorded 19 deaths, or 721 per 100,000. I don't think there's a particular reason why it's hit Gove County worse than others; lots of small rural counties means you'll inherently get a lot of variation. There are the usual problems — underfunded and understaffed hospital, no mask mandate — but nothing that you wouldn't find in every neighboring county.

It does have a hospital where 50 staff were infected, as well as a nursing home (30 people) where everyone was infected. It is also on I-70 so you will have bunches of people stopping for a meal, or refilling the gas tank, or staying overnight compared to the population. Out in the middle of nowhere people will be relaxed. The population is somewhat old (23% 65+ in 2010)

[jimrtex]

William Shakespeare has been vaccinated.

This seems like a good thing to me. The guy is literally hundreds of years old by this point, so he should be one of the most vulnerable to the virus in the world. So it is good to see he is being prioritized to get one of the first vaccine doses.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55233021

https://twitter.com/BBCHughPym/status/1336210741892968449

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,

...

And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

[jimrtex]

Yeah, I don't really see why we should be holding vaccines back for second doses.  The data shows that just getting the first dose is just over 50% effective by itself, and a lot of people who get the first dose won't get the second dose regardless, so from an efficiency standpoint, it seems like we should be using the vaccines we have as quickly as we can use them.

I wonder if it is really an either/or situation.

It's not like could administer 40 million dose on Day 1. It sounds like they anticipate having 40 million doses by December 31.

By say 10 days, they will have a better idea of what will be available in early January, and can start releasing more first doses.

So let's say that by the December 31, they have 40 million doses + another 30 million in the next 21 days. (40+30)/2 = 35 million first doses.

[jimrtex]

Certainly there has to be a trade-off between saving the most lives and saving the most years of life. 

The fatality rate of this virus grows so exponentially with age that I think in general it is better to vaccinate older people first. 

But I’m not sure about the wisdom of giving first priority to those in nursing homes given that the average nursing home resident dies within six months of entering the home anyway.  There’s a huge difference in my mind between an otherwise health 70-year old with a life expectancy of 15-20 years and a long-term care resident with a life expectancy of a few months.

Would you let someone you know move to a nursing home, right now?

Though the median is just under 6 months, the average (mean) is 13 months. Given half are staying say 4 months, the other half must be averaging 22 months.

Anyhow 1.3 million in nursing homes with around 1.0 million staff. 40 million Pfizer doses in December = 20 million persons immunized. So we are talking around 11.5% of the total.

If you can get all the employees and patients immunized, you can immunize new patients and potential visitors.