Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

Your calculation for the coronavirus death rate uses the entire population as the denominator. The entire population hasn't "taken part" in the getting the virus.

If you are using the same denominator for the fatality rates of automobiles that is great. The problem is that a significantly higher proportion of the population has been in an automobile than contracted Covid 19.

If I'm missing something please enlighten me.

TheMillenniumRider said:

Lets look at New Zealand, they were the model, no deaths, no cases. Then out of the blue cases started popping up. This is the problem, you take a model country and they haven't eradicated it. Even if we were a model country we wouldn't eradicate it.

That's the baby/bathwater problem and an anecdote. Should we throw our hands up and not try to do anything? That seems to be the American way. I mean, racism, healthcare, no one can solve those problems so let's not try.

And I can almost guarantee that New Zealand's reaction will get them back to zero status. It's damn near a national sense of pride that they can do what we can not.

Mulfinator said:

Your calculation for the coronavirus death rate uses the entire population as the denominator. The entire population hasn't "taken part" in the getting the virus.

If you are using the same denominator for the fatality rates of automobiles that is great. The problem is that a significantly higher proportion of the population has been in an automobile than contracted Covid 19.

If I'm missing something please enlighten me.

It used the entire 45 and under population which is totally incorrect. This is why I don't get paid for this stuff.

I poked around and tried to find a total case count broken down by age group and didn't find anything but state by state data. I didn't want to crunch those numbers so I just used Florida since I had that data set lying around.

What I found was a per capita of 94.48 per 100,000. Much larger than my initial. Nice catch sir. Deleted previous incorrect info.

ApolloAndy said:

Immunity is good. I hope it does slow the spread and improves our "normalcy vs. safety" trade off across the board, but even the experts in the article aren't fully convinced that the decline in transmission rate is due to immunity and not to increased intervention. Let's hope it's the former but plan like it's the latter because....wait for it.....hope is not a strategy.

Well, we already have an interesting example that illustrates this pretty well. Take a look at this:

Hawaii Coronavirus Cases

Hawaii has had arguably the strictest lockdown in the US and has had mask requirements since mid-April (even outdoors too since early July!). The case curve illustrates something that many epidemiologists have been saying from the beginning - when it's your turn to get coronavirus, you're going to get it no matter what measures you take to try and eliminate it. Countries that thought they had it suppressed - Japan, Spain, Philippines, Australia, Israel, etc., well, the graphs speak for themselves.

There's a reason why the states closest to and/or bordering New York have pretty much the same curve (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut). Large portions of the populations in that sector were already infected and the virus was spreading quickly before they instituted lockdowns. The remaining states, with a couple of exceptions, saw pretty much the same curve after they instituted lockdowns. Most of the lockdowns apart from the NE part of the US happened before the virus was widespread in those areas. The lockdowns (i.e., flattening the curve) simply delayed the cases in those areas. Notice also that the timing of the case curve in nearly every state and the shape of said curve is nearly identical in every non-NE state (California, Florida, Georgia, Utah, Texas, Wisconsin, Arizona, Ohio, Alaska). Again, when it's your state's turn to get coronavirus, you're going to get it regardless of the measures taken.

The good news in all of this is that the case curve has started to bend down nearly everywhere in the US, so you should start to see a pretty quick reduction here in the next month or two. We're already seeing that borne out in lower hospitalization numbers and the mortality numbers will soon follow. This virus has been way more widespread than the case numbers bear out, which is something that Lord Gonchar has been emphasizing since March. The virus has finally infected enough people to where the population has started to build some immunity and it's that - not the other non-pharmaceutical measures - that are finally starting to impact the numbers.

Gary Dowdell said:

The virus has finally infected enough people to where the population has started to build some immunity and it's that - not the other non-pharmaceutical measures - that are finally starting to impact the numbers.

This is a pretty outrageous claim to make without substantiation.

It might seem outrageous, but it's actually really quite simple.

Remember the "flatten the curve" graphic we all saw early on? There were two curves - one for the "no measures taken" (sharper increase, shorter duration, sharper decline) and one for the "measures taken" (flatter case growth, longer duration, slower decline). Case numbers in New York state peaked around April 1. The lockdown measures went into effect on March 20. This story was written on April 23, which said that "one in five New Yorkers tested positive for the antibodies to the coronavirus". New York and the surrounding areas had the virus sweep through the population well before lockdowns took effect, and the serology testing there confirms that. New York is a "no measures taken" state due to the timing the measures were taken, well after the virus was spreading through the population there.

The other thing to consider is that New York didn't see any increase in case numbers shortly after the BLM protests. Their case numbers have been steadily declining for more than two months, despite a record number of testing being done. The decline in mortality is even more dramatic. All of the these things in conjunction would simply not be possible if there wasn't some existing immunity within the population there.

Growing scientific evidence suggest that the herd immunity threshold is much lower than the 60% and 70% numbers that were mentioned at the outset of this situation. Michael Levitt out of Stanford has suggested for months that threshold is probably between 15%-20%, and a recent study (non-peer reviewed as yet) suggest that herd immunity thresholds are likely between 10% and 20%. Positive test rates from the "hotspots" of a few weeks ago (Arizona, Florida, Texas) give evidence of this. Once positive test rates get to and sustain for a few weeks at levels from 15%-20% the positive case numbers start dropping soon thereafter. In the case of New York and the surrounding areas, they reached that threshold early on, even before lockdowns went into effect. As I mentioned earlier, case numbers there have been steadily dropping since. States that locked down before the virus started spreading didn't start reaching those thresholds until recently, which is why you're just now starting to see the case numbers start dropping in those locations.

Pretty simple really.

You're linking to non-peer-reviewed studies. That's not settled science. You're also confusing correlation with causation. Whatever decline we've had in Florida isn't because of some phantom immunity that's building, it's because individual counties are getting serious again about mandating mitigation tactics. Remember, the CDC's current guidance is that you've got three months of potential immunity after you get it. We don't know what the long-term picture looks like, but it's not like chicken pox.

It's not "pretty simple." Really.

Gary Dowdell said:

The case curve illustrates something that many epidemiologists have been saying from the beginning - when it's your turn to get coronavirus, you're going to get it no matter what measures you take to try and eliminate it.

Who is saying this? If Hawaii is seeing a spread, it's not happening because of some act of God, it's happening because of human behavior. Furthermore, Hawaii has the second lowest cases per capita of any state (Vermont is winning). That's like saying we should all give up on containment because New Zealand has a little outbreak after having zero cases for months.

I'm tired of these willful complacency arguments.

Jeff said:

You're also confusing correlation with causation. Whatever decline we've had in Florida isn't because of some phantom immunity that's building, it's because individual counties are getting serious again about mandating mitigation tactics.

One of the reasons why I'm glad that Sweden didn't embark on the same experiment everyone else did is that we get to see what happens in a "control" group. Sweden only implemented a few significant measures - ceasing in-person education for those age 16 and up, 1.5 meter social distancing and limiting gatherings to no more than 50 people. No mask mandates (and less than 10% usage in the population). No lockdowns (i.e., quarantining healthy people). No border closings. The Imperial College model at the outset said that according to their projections the current Swedish government’s response – if permitted to continue – would pass 40,000 deaths shortly after May 1, 2020 and continue to rise to almost 100,000 deaths by June. Their current toll is 5,776, 116 in the last month.

Of note, Sweden's second quarter GDP fell less than most other EU countries, -8.6% (for reference, -10.1% in Germany, -13.6% in France, -18.5% in Spain) and better than the US (-9.6%) and New Zealand (expected -17%). Also of note, Sweden's neighbors (all of whom locked down to varying degrees) are also seeing case numbers starting to climb again while Sweden's are declining.

No mask mandates. No lockdowns. Economy left in better shape. Perhaps in the future Swedish residents will get serious about mandating mitigation tactics.

Gary Dowdell said:

New York is a "no measures taken" state due to the timing the measures were taken, well after the virus was spreading through the population there.

The decreased daily case count in NY follows decreased mobility pretty closely, so I'm not sure how you're reaching this conclusion. NYC's mobility decreased dramatically in late March, and a couple weeks later cases reached their peak and thereafter began declining.

And their mobility is still well below baseline, at least for public transit (-50%) and walking (-25%), which is no doubt helping keep their new daily case count relatively low.

Is there some positive impact from increased local immunity? Sure, in the places like NYC who were absolutely hammered with the virus, but there is no broad consensus that immunity is the primary driver of their flattened curve. They're just social distancing and wearing masks.

All of the these things in conjunction would simply not be possible if there wasn't some existing immunity within the population there.

"Some" is not nearly the same as it being the primary factor in reduced new cases, first of all. And "simply not be possible" is not a conclusion that I've seen accepted by the scientific community. I mean, that's probably not even a conclusion that they could reach this early in the pandemic. By most accounts, it's going to take years to unpack and understand all the variables of this complex pandemic. We are in month 6, so it seems pretty hasty to be reaching "not possible" conclusions.

Michael Levitt out of Stanford has suggested...

This is the guy who predicted the infection rate in Ireland would "burn itself out" in May. That... hasn't happened.

...a recent study (non-peer reviewed as yet)...

If a study produces results that do not comport with the broad consensus of experts, you should be wary of latching onto the results until it has been peer reviewed.

Once positive test rates get to and sustain for a few weeks at levels from 15%-20% the positive case numbers start dropping soon thereafter.

As Jeff pointed out, this is correlation without further evidence, especially because decreased mobility - whose impact is broadly supported by scientific evidence and peer-reviewed studies - is the more likely explanation.

djDaemon said:

Is there some positive impact from increased local immunity? Sure, in the places like NYC who were absolutely hammered with the virus, but there is no broad consensus that immunity is the primary driver of their flattened curve. They're just social distancing and wearing masks.

Californians are also social distancing and wearing masks. Their recent mobility scores (time period from June 28 through August 9) are nearly identical with one notable exception:

• Retail & Recreation: New York -20%; California -29%
• Grocery & Pharmacy: New York -7%; California -9%
• Parks: New York +137%; California +19%
• Transit Stations: New York -35%; California -34%
• Workplaces: New York -16%; California -20%
• Residential: New York +1%; California +6%

One state has case curve that's increasing and at near-record high levels, and one state has a case curve that's decreasing and near record low levels. If you asked someone who wasn't familiar with our discussion to identify which state was which based solely on the above numbers, would they be able to tell you which state was which? Texas, Florida, and Arizona all have negative mobility scores in each area except residential with significant increasing case counts during a good portion of that timeframe. There's nearly no correlation in reality.

If a study produces results that do not comport with the broad consensus of experts, you should be wary of latching onto the results until it has been peer reviewed.

Like this study that made the rounds before it had to be retracted? The difference is that this one was peer-reviewed (albeit in a controversial manner, but still). On the whole I agree with this point, and this is a great reminder of why anyone shouldn't be permanently tied to one viewpoint when credible dissenting information is presented.

Regarding NY March looking like CA, AZ, TX summer...

Again, I think another X factor you have to consider affecting the current curves is the climate. While people are functioning equally less mobily, more socially distance all around now: NY is in its fairest season right now. Windows are open more often then not. People are outside (in park's apparently) The south is hot for the long haul (right Florida people and Gonch?) and in those places people are more apt to be retreating and sheltering indoors. The recent hot spots in California was in hotter LA, not denser San Francisco. Reliance on air conditioning and recirculating air for a higher percent of the season.

So while masking is more diligently practiced now across the board, better in CA or even TX then NY was in March: The places peaking more recently were higher risk on the calendar. Same reason why we have a flu season. The greater % of people that are not going to be outside dining because its swamp ass (coupled with some good old Miami dry humping) could be enough of a tilt to springboard the same level of spread. Kind of mimicking the previous March curves DESPITE the current state of masking and distancing.

So maybe it IS the same curve (just not for the reasons you're stating) ...And it could be a hell of a lot worse. We can all make up our own hypothesis and find data points to support it.

In case you're hanging on to the absurd herd immunity angle, Fauci says no:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/14/health/us-coronavirus-friday/index.html

Jeff - at what point do you give up? If someone believes herd immunity they are not going to believe Fauci no matter how many poss you make or how many articles you link.

The problem is that infection doesn’t equal sickness. If more people are infected that we thought. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/health/coronavirus-infections-us.amp.html

Which they probably are.

coupled with herd immunity occurring at a lower rate than expected.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6505/846

Then we might be closer than people realize. Exponential growth, remove a few down lines and you have a huge effect. It probably won’t be total burnout, but it might slow sooner than all the doomsday crowd thinks it will.

Shades said:

Jeff - at what point do you give up?

When people stop posting incorrect nonsense on the part of the Internet I pay for.

Jeff said:

In case you're hanging on to the absurd herd immunity angle, Fauci says no:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/14/health/us-coronavirus-friday/index.html

And that's one person's opinion and he's entitled to that. You mentioned earlier that the CDC says that coronavirus immunity lasts for about 3 months. This is also from our friends at the CDC:

Currently, 6 months after the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, there have been no confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. However, the number of areas where sustained infection pressure has been maintained, and therefore reinfections would be most likely observed, remains limited.

Also from Dr. Fauci (statements made early July):

Fauci, the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, added that reports of recovered Covid-19 patients being reinfected with the virus are probably inaccurate. He said it’s more likely that the test used to detect Covid-19 probably picked up fragments of the virus still in the recovered patient’s body, but they probably hadn’t been reinfected.

“There are no documented cases where people got better and actually got sick again in the sense of virus replicating,” he said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a rare case of an individual who went into remission and relapsed. ... But Francis, I can say with confidence, that it is very unlikely if it’s a common phenomenon.

Isn't this the very definition of immunity?

One person's opinion? He's literally the government appointed expert of experts. His opinion holds a whole lot of weight. He's not some random dude on the Internet.

You're confusing herd immunity with recurring infection. Furthermore, Fauci isn't saying you can't get sick next year. No one actually knows, which is why he's also said that it's possible that we could require the vaccine annually, much the way the flu vaccine works.

The same government who said this was no big deal? Hmmmmm. Talk about a conflicting message. I wonder if they will replace him with another expert who is more in line with the initial message.

No, Trump said it was no big deal. The actual experts in government, when permitted to speak, have never downplayed it. Let's stop pretending like we don't know the difference between a compulsive liar and a recognized expert in a scientific field, and then using that as justification for throwing our hands up and deciding there's nothing we can do about it.

I didn’t throw my hands up. I just wonder if they will toss him in favor of an expert that aligns with the initial message. That is kind of their thing lately isn’t it?

Edit: Page 100. Sweet!! :)