Continuation The One Covid-19 Science and Medicine Thread Part 2

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by anduin

Delurking to post. I have a very personal interest in this fight, I caught Covid-19 during a trip to Paris in early March, before the lock-down. I developed symptoms on Saturday March 14, just a small fever and a cough at first, then the symptoms got worse. Cough, tight chest, fever, eventually diarrhoea and lost my sense of small, but things got better after 3 weeks, but I still felt a bit off.

Then the symptoms continued, and continued, and continued.

I'm still sick, I'm one of the Long Covid contingent, tens of thousands of us are congregating online sharing our symptoms, most have been sick for 4 months.

I no longer have covid, I had a negative test 2 weeks ago, but I have a range of symptoms, chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath, brain fog, fatigue, if I over-do physical activity I become extremely fatigued and can't get out of bed.

I've had blood test, everything seems fine, and an inconclusive X-ray, so if things continue as they are I will get a lung scan, I can feel there's something wrong with my lungs. This disease is the worst thing that has happened to me, and for at least 10% of patients it seems to linger is some sort of post-viral infection.

First and foremost, thank you for sharing and I hope that you recover fully and very soon.

Second... just to verify because I had unusual and atypical chest pain for an extended period of time earlier this year (apparently at the same time as an EKG anomaly that seems to have disappeared since? It's unknown whether it's COVID related or not - there have been a couple times I've had very unusual issues this year, though), can persistent heart burn be ruled out there for you? As it was, I had never experienced anything like that before and it took a rather excessive period of time before I was directed in a more helpful direction. It almost completely cleared up after a few days of Prilosec, but it feels like it could come back if I don't continue to take the mitigating measures that were minimizing the discomfort, if that makes sense.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

...85 babies under 1 year old in Nueces County have tested positive for COVID-19, according to report[/url]

And some claim it's safe to open schools?

How many of those children, and others with Covid, are in hospital right now?

Or, maybe we could look at what a front-line expert says:

Originally Posted by Planigale

I think the problem is what do we mean by safe. The risk to children from covid-19 is small but not zero. It is certainly below the risks we accept for other issues.

Which ties in precisely with what I said - Americans couldn't give two hoots about preventing 3000 gunshot deaths a year but have their panties bunched over a maximum of 300 kids dying of Covid.

Originally Posted by anduin

Delurking to post.

I'm glad you did - we have some excellent information in this thread and that adds to it. I hope you manage to get rid of it!

Originally Posted by anduin

Covid-19 could be more like polio.

Now, there's an ugly thought.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Going down? Myriad?

Unfortunately, no. Or rather, probably not. There are significant weekday artifacts in the U.S. statistics (in other countries as well), caused by testing schedules, lab operation schedules, working schedules of hospital departments and reporting agencies, things like that, across all the different states. Wednesday through Friday is when the weekly highs appear. The numbers always drop Saturdays through Tuesdays.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

And therefore is completely irrelevant to the discussion taking place.

You said this:

Quote:

Genetic abnormalities are not contagious, first of all...

The point was claims human populations develop genetic immunity was misguided without knowing how long said mutations actually take to affect a population.

As for this statement:

Quote:

The existence of genetic abnormalities does not support your ideas of varying viral susceptibility.

Genetic variation is built in. When an infectious disease exerts a selection pressure on a human population, if said variations did not already exist, waiting for a mutation to arise would be too slow to do much good, given how slow human reproduction is. Instead, a particular mutation might be amplified if people without the mutation did not survive to rerpoduce.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Rolfe: “Herd immunity is the level of population protection at which the virus can no longer find new hosts and dies out.”

Puppycow (re controlling the original SARS): “Not because of herd immunity, but by tracing and quarantining.“

I’m confused; wouldn’t “tracing and quarantining” be a means to attain herd immunity? (leave aside the slight anthropomorphism of a virus “finding” something).

Likewise, wouldn’t some vaccines (not all) also be a means to attain herd immunity?

No. Herd immunity means the population is so largely immune that the virus can't find hosts. Tracing and quarantine is precisely the opposite, preventing infecting hosts from finding new ones even though the bulk of the population is not immune.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

How many of those children, and others with Covid, are in hospital right now?...

Well there is this:

NYT: (via Yahoo) Older Children Spread the Coronavirus Just as Much as Adults, Study Finds

Quote:

A large new study from South Korea offers an answer: Children younger than age 10 transmit to others much less often than adults do, but the risk is not zero. And those between the ages of 10-19 can spread the virus at least as well as adults do. ...

... Several studies from Europe and Asia have suggested that young children are less likely to get infected and to spread the virus. But most of those studies were small and flawed, said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.

The new study “is very carefully done, it’s systematic and looks at a very large population,” Jha said. “It’s one of the best studies we’ve had to date on this issue.”

This is one of the key variables:

Quote:

Other experts also praised the scale and rigor of the analysis. South Korean researchers identified 5,706 people who were the first to report COVID-19 symptoms in their households between Jan. 20 and March 27, when schools were closed, and then traced the 59,073 contacts of these “index cases.” They tested all of the household contacts of each patient, regardless of symptoms, but only tested symptomatic contacts outside the household.

I posted about this earlier. Younger kids might spread it to fewer people, but that is compensated by the fact they are in contact with so many more hosts.

And they have older siblings.

So one kid in elementary school that exposes most kids in their class may only transmit the infection to a few of them. But as the cascade continues more people end up infected because kids are in contact with so many more people than adults tend to be in contact with.

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

No. Herd immunity means the population is so largely immune that the virus can't find hosts. Tracing and quarantine is precisely the opposite, preventing infecting hosts from finding new ones even though the bulk of the population is not immune.

Still troubled by "the virus can't find hosts"; viruses do not have volition, much less consciousness.

Now "population": it seems to be a term also defined, in part, by anthropomorphizing viruses. If people¹ who are infected are quarantined, those quarantined have herd immunity, because the only people they could potentially infect with the virus have already been infected. IOW, there is not one population of people, but many.

Turning to vaccines: some would seem to be a means to attain herd immunity, in that people who have been successfully vaccinated cannot become infected.

Anyway, back to Rolfe (bold added): “Herd immunity is the level of population protection at which the virus can no longer find new hosts and dies out.” Is the "dying out"² essential for herd immunity?

¹works just as well for pigs, guppies, even azaleas
²more anthropomorphizing!

[casebro]

If a guy can turn foxes into dogs in his life time, I doubt that it takes thousands of years for humans to improve a genetic immunity.

Lessee: Two people with mild immunity have mild cases of Covid. Of their 4 children, two would have mild, one standard risk, and one double the immunity, no risk maybe. After that Darwin says it just a matter of waiting for the rest of the population to die out. A few generations, NOT 50.....Ok, lots more generations, what with only a 1/2% fatality rate.

The important question is: Are there people out there who are genetically immune? What percent of the population? ( I read somewhere, somebody, says 80%. CT?)

eta: Looks like, on the Darwinsim time scale, this disease is petty.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by marting

The USA Covid-19 situation is highly variable from one state to the other.

Trace and quarantine works but requires these factors:

1. Community spread has to be low enough that it's doable. This is the case in some states, particularly the ones most hard hit in the North East but is a long way from feasible in much of the Southern states.

2. Where community spread is too large for T&Q, NPI, aka shutdowns and masks have to be implemented and observed widely. This hasn't been done effectively in many states where R was reduced only to around 1. Had it been reduced another 20% back then T&Q would have been feasible. But with "opening up" lots of people were grouping together in bars, delayed wedding, etc. with a huge increase in infections. So now we are doing shutdowns part deux. I'm not optimistic as there is a lot of resistance. OTOH, masks finally seem to be more widely used. So we'll see. It'll be another few weeks to see what effect recent changes have made in Calif. where I'm at. Probably not too different in TX, AZ, and FL though they have a higher percentage of people that think Covid-19's is fake news. All of us southern states had about 1/10th the problem NY, MA, NJ, etc. had so it's just starting to become real to many here.

3. Eventually, either in the next few weeks, or months from now after a lot more infections people will eventually come around. Also, as a higher percentage of people have gotten Covid the R value for will naturally reduce. An R of 1.1 will become .9 for instance. So it will be an interplay between behavior and percent previously infected. What we don't know is what percentage of the population has to get infected to drive R below 1 when a population is partially adhering to NPI requests. Probably somewhere between 15% and 50% depending on the state. But eventually community spread should decline to the point T&Q can be effective assuming we follow the trajectory of most European states. The only question is how many people have to die to get there.

And all this also assumes some degree of immunity from prior infection which is a big unknown as is whether a vaccine is even possible. But this will be known at some point.

There is one bit of good news in all the bad in the USA.

The new infections are heavily skewed towards people below the age of 60 so the deaths associated will be much lower than that in the North East where the distribution of Covid-19 cases was fairly evenly spread amongst age groups. BTW, this is also what's happening in Sweden where cases are still high but deaths have been on a long decline. They had a shift starting 3 months ago where older people were far less likely to get Covid-19. A very similar thing is now happening in Southern states though delayed in comparison to Sweden. Whether it continues remains to be seen but it's a good bet older people are much more aware how at risk they are than was the case not long ago.

(my hilite)

And even in the hardest hit states of NY, NJ, and CT, the "hitting" ranged from almost-Alaska lows to worse-than-Wuhan highs (I think the same is true of MA and RI; Myriad?).

[Steve]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Thanks.



Still troubled by "the virus can't find hosts"; viruses do not have volition, much less consciousness.

You are better than this, JeanTate. I know this from reading your many contributions in science threads. You know exactly what is meant.

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Now "population": it seems to be a term also defined, in part, by anthropomorphizing viruses. If people¹ who are infected are quarantined, those quarantined have herd immunity, because the only people they could potentially infect with the virus have already been infected. IOW, there is not one population of people, but many.

Turning to vaccines: some would seem to be a means to attain herd immunity, in that people who have been successfully vaccinated cannot become infected.

Anyway, back to Rolfe (bold added): “Herd immunity is the level of population protection at which the virus can no longer find new hosts and dies out.” Is the "dying out"² essential for herd immunity?

¹works just as well for pigs, guppies, even azaleas
²more anthropomorphizing!

In practical terms, yes. Again, you know that it will not 100% die out. You also know that a steep reduction in infections means that there is a lot less of the effective virus around. If viable hosts are not available there will be a much smaller amount of the virus around, which means that a lot of the virus has died out.

Your semantics are very out of character for you. What are you hoping to accomplish?

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Then you haven't even looked or are being plain dishonest.

What does CDC have to say on the subject?

Gonna get a bit nit-picky here ...

- Those are the words of the VOA reporter. Not "Dr. Anne Schuchat of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention"

- your source (the VOA document) does not seem to contain a link to any CDC statement.

Care to try again?

Quote:

Let me work this out....

If it's "spreading too fast to bring under control" I'm pretty sure even my stupid bush logic says that means it's out of control now.

https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pan...dc-expert-says

<snip>

Perhaps.

But here in the SMM&T board, we should aim a bit higher than your "stupid bush logic", shouldn't we?

And that's ignoring the difference between "uncontrolled" and "uncontrollably".

Per rt.live - one of my go-to sources for quantitative data and analysis - a handful of US states have a current estimated value of R_t>1.2 (ND, ID, AK, WV, and MT).

Two of three hardest hit states (NJ and CT) had R_t>1.2 until late March (in NY it was down to 1.0 by then). Today all three have R_t values close to 1.0; certainly 1.0 has been within the error bars for several weeks. I don't have to spell out what an R_t<1.0 means, do I?

All five of the states in which R_t>1.2 currently have deaths per 100k of population far below those of NY, like ~1-10%.

I'm less familiar with the next two on the death list (MA, RI; Myriad?), but I think much the same could be said for them too.

The recent headline states - AZ, FL, TX - have a loooong way to go before they reach NY/NJ/CT/MA/RI levels, from March/April.

Sure doesn't look like "raging uncontrollably" to me.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

...

Still troubled by "the virus can't find hosts"; viruses do not have volition, much less consciousness.

That's really unnecessary pedantry.

But I know what you meant.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You said this:

The point was claims human populations develop genetic immunity was misguided without knowing how long said mutations actually take to affect a population.

As for this statement: Genetic variation is built in. When an infectious disease exerts a selection pressure on a human population, if said variations did not already exist, waiting for a mutation to arise would be too slow to do much good, given how slow human reproduction is. Instead, a particular mutation might be amplified if people without the mutation did not survive to rerpoduce.

Someone compared contagious diseases to genetic abnormalities.

I pointed out the error.

You then decided that means I need an education on selective pressures.

I'm moving on, now.

Please stop wasting both of our time.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by casebro

If a guy can turn foxes into dogs in his life time, I doubt that it takes thousands of years for humans to improve a genetic immunity.

Lessee: Two people with mild immunity have mild cases of Covid. Of their 4 children, two would have mild, one standard risk, and one double the immunity, no risk maybe. After that Darwin says it just a matter of waiting for the rest of the population to die out. A few generations, NOT 50.....Ok, lots more generations, what with only a 1/2% fatality rate.

The important question is: Are there people out there who are genetically immune? What percent of the population? ( I read somewhere, somebody, says 80%. CT?)

eta: Looks like, on the Darwinsim time scale, this disease is petty.

Acquired immunity is not propagated genetically.

I am not aware of how "genetic immunity" would even work. If your lung cells have ACE2 receptors, you are vulnerable. If your memory B-cells have never encountered this before, they will take time to respond.

Anything else?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Well there is this:

Which doesn't answer the question, so I'll try again:

How many children under 18 have been hospitalised in USA for Covid?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

NYT: (via Yahoo) Older Children Spread the Coronavirus Just as Much as Adults, Study Finds

Ok, so you now agree that younger children don't spread it as much. Good start.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This is one of the key variables:

I posted about this earlier. Younger kids might spread it to fewer people, but that is compensated by the fact they are in contact with so many more hosts.

Lacks evidence. If kids are ten times less infectious than adults, they'd need to interact with ten times as many people, but you aren't even able to quantify what the rate of infection is, so you're just guessing.

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Gonna get a bit nit-picky here ...

- Those are the words of the VOA reporter. Not "Dr. Anne Schuchat of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention"

That's not nit-picking, it's clutching at straws that don't even exist.

They are the words spoken by Dr Schuchat. That's why they were in quotation marks - is that another part of English you don't understand?

The reason you haven't seen a publication from the CDC is because it was an interview - which the article clearly states. It was widely reported in the main media. Here's CNBC, or you can go and listen to the actual words spoken by her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5c3...ature=youtu.be

Originally Posted by JeanTate

But here in the SMM&T board, we should aim a bit higher than your "stupid bush logic", shouldn't we?

Again, you're trying so hard to challenge the facts you're focusing on yet another throwaway remark. The very reason I mentioned bush logic is because you don't need any logic when the CDC has said it.

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Per rt.live - ...

43 states are showing rates above 1.

Thanks for agreeing with CDC at last.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Please stop wasting both of our time.

You do know you aren't the only one in the thread, right?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Which doesn't answer the question, so I'll try again:

How many children under 18 have been hospitalised in USA for Covid?

It doesn't matter because that is not the only thing to consider when deciding when to open schools up.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Ok, so you now agree that younger children don't spread it as much. Good start.

So now you agree younger children are indeed getting infected. Good start.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Lacks evidence. If kids are ten times less infectious than adults, they'd need to interact with ten times as many people, but you aren't even able to quantify what the rate of infection is, so you're just guessing.

It's not a guess, I posted a link upthread discussing the very issue.

But let's get back to the actual question that matters: how does this impact the decision to open schools?

Do we exclude all the high risk kids?
The kids who have high risk parents or siblings?
The kids who cannot socially distance from older relatives such as grandparents in extended generation households?
The kids 10 and older?
The kids who have siblings 10 or older?

Who does that leave that we can open the schools for?

[JeanTate]

Thanks for your kind words, Steve.

Originally Posted by Steve

You are better than this, JeanTate. I know this from reading your many contributions in science threads. You know exactly what is meant.

I have no doubt that if I were to invest four or so years to learn this field, I would be able to seamlessly and easily interpret the anthropomorphism appropriately. Like recognizing when "gas" means "plasma" in astrophysics.

However, every time I think I've got my arms around "herd immunity" - as applied to infectious viruses in humans - along comes a post or two that throws me off. Such as several recent ones here by Rolfe and Planigale (among others).

Quote:

In practical terms, yes. Again, you know that it will not 100% die out. You also know that a steep reduction in infections means that there is a lot less of the effective virus around. If viable hosts are not available there will be a much smaller amount of the virus around, which means that a lot of the virus has died out.

Your semantics are very out of character for you. What are you hoping to accomplish?

Actually, I had forgotten that SG had earlier addressed this directly (emphasis in original): "I have a pedantic quibble with "dies out." Rather herd immunity means transmission ceases."

To me, that's much easier to understand, and doesn't needlessly add layers of anthropomorphism. It's also more likely to succinctly describe what happens, accurately.

[JeanTate]

In light of recent, um, clarifications, let me see if I can summarize ...

Originally Posted by The Atheist

<snip>

Given the minor negatives of schools being open, I don't think there's any question about it. Take USA as an example - in an average year, 4000 kids die in traffic crashes and 3000 die from gunshot wounds.

The best information I can find on Covid deaths by age is a bit old, but should be close enough. In NYC, a whopping 0.06% of deaths were under age 18.

Let's err on the high side and say that the mortality rate of Covid is 1%. That means a child's likelihood of dying on Covid is about 0.0006% as a worst-case.

With 50M school kids in USA, that could mean a maximum of 300 children dying, one tenth of the number killed by guns, and 2/3 the number killed annually by their parents.

The other side is, in an uncontrolled epidemic, which is where USA & Brazil are, everyone is going to get Covid sooner or later, so you're not actually protecting anyone. America had the chance to halt the virus and failed. Why make kids pay for the idiocy of their parents & grandparents?

Even better, we have real-world examples of what happens when schools open: nothing! Germany, Denmark, Australia... take your pick. No spike in cases despite schools being open.

There are a lot of school kids in the US; 50 million (give or take).

If all of them were to contract covid-19, <~300 would die from it.

Germany, Denmark, and Australia have (re-)opened their schools.

No spike in covid-19 cases in those countries, despite schools being open.

So the harm in (re-)opening US schools would be minimal.

That about right, TA?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It doesn't matter because that is not the only thing to consider when deciding when to open schools up.

Sure, but it was the question asked and you have no response, so we can move on, I suppose.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So now you agree younger children are indeed getting infected. Good start.

That's completely dishonest, because I never suggested they couldn't get it and have posted numerous times on the subject, mainly to note the lack of harm compared to other age groups.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

But let's get back to the actual question that matters: how does this impact the decision to open schools?

Do we exclude all the high risk kids?

What children are at high risk?

Pediatricians don't know, so I'm guessing you have no clue either: https://www.contemporarypediatrics.c...and-mosquitoes

I'm mildly amused that the closest they get to identifying children at high risk of MIS-C are those who have severe Covid symptoms already.

What you're proposing is that 50M kids are kept out of school to protect a vanishingly small number of children that can't be identified.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The kids who have high risk parents or siblings?
The kids who cannot socially distance from older relatives such as grandparents in extended generation households?

Can you show how many people were infected by their children? It seems the exact opposite is true.

Quote:

Studies that tracked how infections spread through households in the U.S., Switzerland, and several countries in Asia have shown that adults are far more likely than kids to bring the virus into their homes, said Dr. Naomi Bardach, a pediatrician and policy researcher at UC San Francisco.

“Most often, the adult in the household was the one who was originally infected,” added Dr. Ibukun Christine Akinboyo, medical director of pediatric infection prevention at Duke University Medical Center. “If it was the child, there seemed to be a less than 15% risk that the child would transmit across the household.”

https://www.latimes.com/science/stor...turn-to-school

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The kids 10 and older?
The kids who have siblings 10 or older?

Who does that leave that we can open the schools for?

Maybe take a look at what your own National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine says:

Quote:

Online learning is ineffective for most elementary-school children and special-needs children, the panel of scientists and educators concluded.

To the extent possible, “it should be a priority for districts to reopen for in-person learning, especially for younger ages,” said Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and a member of the committee.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/h...reopening.html

You can keep the 10+ on distance learning, which would remove the need for adults to be present for the over 13/14 age, whichever is the legal age to be left alone in USA. Gives the majority of parents the ability to return to work, and puts kids back where they belong and will learn the most.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Acquired immunity is not propagated genetically.

I am not aware of how "genetic immunity" would even work. If your lung cells have ACE2 receptors, you are vulnerable. If your memory B-cells have never encountered this before, they will take time to respond.

Anything else?

23&Me tells me I am immune to Norwalk Norovirus. The receptors that virus needs won't accept the virus. That is Genetic Immunity. IF ACE-2 receptors vary, wah-lah, some people would have a genetic immunity.

Hmmm, aren't some people offering tests for just that? Woo?

eta I just checked my Promethease file. It offers 5 gene SNPs under ACE2. So Yeah, there are ACE2 variations. For me those 5 are all homozygous and "pathogenicity repute unknown". They are mostly in 20%, one of 40%, of the population. My math- about 6 people per 10,000 would have my combination. Most genetic stuff is multi-genic. I guess I can go try to find which SNPs effect Covid susceptibility?


eta:

Quote:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...042v1.full.pdf We found that S19P (common in African people) and K26R (common in European people) were, among the most diffused SNPs worldwide, the only two SNPs that were able to potentially affect the interaction of ACE2 with SARS-CoV-2 spike. FireDock simulations demonstrated that while S19P may decrease, K26R might increase the ACE2 affinity for SARS-CoV-2 Spike. This finding suggests that the S19P may genetically protect, and K26R may predispose to more severe SARS-CoV-2 disease

Geeze, I hate it when they give the snps as s19p or k26r instead of RSxxxxx A;T or such. So I don't know whether my snps align. BUT, yes, there are people looking in to genetic variations of immunity.

Yet another eta:

Quote:

, from above- In particular, the S19P SNP is rather common in African people with a frequency about 0.3%, while K26RSNP is frequent in European people with a frequency about 0.5%

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by casebro

23&Me tells me I am immune to Norwalk Norovirus.

Nope - it's an effect of your blood type.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

(my hilite)

And even in the hardest hit states of NY, NJ, and CT, the "hitting" ranged from almost-Alaska lows to worse-than-Wuhan highs (I think the same is true of MA and RI; Myriad?).

That's a deep question. In MA and CT, yes, less densely populated regions had significantly (but not vastly) lower case rates per capita than the more densely populated ones. The islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, each of which is a Massachusetts county, had very few cases (think Alaska-like). On the mainland, with the exception of Cape Cod (which has socioeconomic circumstances too odd to draw any clear conclusions from), the difference between the most urban counties (Boston metro area) and the most rural (like Berkshire and Franklin counties) are about fivefold.

Based on that (which was a clear pattern by the start of June), because patterns in Covid statistics seem to apply fractally at different scales, I was expecting states where the population overall is less dense and had fewer initial cases, like Arizona and Georgia and North Carolina, to equilibrate at lower levels. What I wasn't taking into account was that in MA and RI, everyone in the state was following the same rules at the same time, whether they had a high number of cases or not. If the people in Franklin County MA had been having parties and (later) ignoring the mask mandate, they wouldn't have stayed at one fifth the per capita case rate of the metropolitan counties as they did.

When you think about it, the potential mechanisms of spread are similar in most places from small towns to cities. There aren't as many shared apartment spaces in small towns, and few or no public transit vehicles. But food markets, chain stores, restaurants, bars, and cinemas are similar everywhere. Small towns don't have tiny one-table restaurants and six-seat cinemas and miniature Home Depots; they just have fewer regular restaurants and cinemas and Home Depots located farther apart. Overall it appears that lockdowns and distancing measures will be more effective at lower population densities, but without them, low mean population density alone won't keep you out of trouble.

[JeanTate]

Just one thing, for now ...

Originally Posted by The Atheist

<snip>

43 states are showing rates above 1.

Thanks for agreeing with CDC at last.

From Rt.live:

“What are the red and green shaded bars above and below the value of Rt in the top graph? And what are the colored red and green regions on the state graphs?
To understand these regions, you need to understand that the model is searching for the best Rt curve of an infinite number of curves to explain the new case data that we are seeing. Of these infinitely many curves, there are some that are compatible with the data and others that are not. We show a single average curve, but the truth is that we’re not so confident that we can pick just one curve of all those curves. So, we show a range where we’re 80% sure the true curve lies. You'll notice this range is much larger in states with fewer cases. This happens because there are far more curves that can explain the small case counts than when case counts are large.”

As I read the graphs, only one state currently has bars that are entirely red (no need to spell out what that means, right?), MT.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Sure, but it was the question asked and you have no response, so we can move on, I suppose.

Why should I answer an irrelevant question instead of directing the discussion back on topic? I have always been talking about the issue of kids going back to school. Perhaps you recall claiming you had no horse in the race because your kid was going to school in New Zealand so at one time you knew what the discussion was about.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's completely dishonest, because I never suggested they couldn't get it and have posted numerous times on the subject, mainly to note the lack of harm compared to other age groups.

And I said we don't have the data on the role kids in schools play in spreading COVID. I'm not going to hunt back to where you conflated 'can't get it' with can't spread it.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

What children are at high risk?

Obese, diabetics, respiratory disease, cardiac disease, immunocompromised, .... kids do have these medical problems, not just adults.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Pediatricians don't know, so I'm guessing you have no clue either: https://www.contemporarypediatrics.c...and-mosquitoes

I'm mildly amused that the closest they get to identifying children at high risk of MIS-C are those who have severe Covid symptoms already.

What you're proposing is that 50M kids are kept out of school to protect a vanishingly small number of children that can't be identified.

Wow!

You already dismissed the "we don't know what long term effects kids will suffer" by claiming that was evidence there were no long term effects.

Now you are arguing straw that because MIS-C has been recognized that is the only problem I could find.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Can you show how many people were infected by their children? It seems the exact opposite is true.

We have two data sets now, one in S Korea and one in Sweden. Given we have overwhelming evidence kids in schools are main sources for community spread, not many people actually evaluating the evidence would say those 2 studies are sufficient to say with confidence this virus will prove the exception to the rule.

And you still aren't looking what the effects of returning to schools will be on spread further downstream.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

https://www.latimes.com/science/stor...turn-to-school

Maybe take a look at what your own National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine says:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/h...reopening.html

You can keep the 10+ on distance learning, which would remove the need for adults to be present for the over 13/14 age, whichever is the legal age to be left alone in USA. Gives the majority of parents the ability to return to work, and puts kids back where they belong and will learn the most.

Maybe you should look at what data is actually out there instead of speculation.

What about kids that have siblings 10 and older? As for daycare, I did not leave my son home alone until middle school (age 11-12).


This is from the CDC which is tempering their data:

Quote:

Clinical Course and Complications in Children
The largest study of pediatric patients (>2,000) with COVID-19 from China reported that illness severity ranged from asymptomatic to critical:16

Asymptomatic (no clinical signs or symptoms with normal chest imaging): 4%
Mild (mild symptoms, including fever, fatigue, myalgia, cough): 51%
Moderate (pneumonia with symptoms or subclinical disease with abnormal chest imaging): 39%
Severe (dyspnea, central cyanosis, hypoxia): 5%
Critical (acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], respiratory failure, shock, or multi-organ dysfunction): 0.6%

AAP prepub release: COVID-19 in Children: Initial Characterization of the Pediatric Disease

Quote:

There are several salient points from this paper. First, while children are less likely to become severely ill than older adults, there are subpopulations of children with an increased risk ... One viral surveillance study in a pediatric intensive care unit in China reported that coronavirus was detected in more children with ARDS than human metapneumovirus.5

Another study in hospitalized Norwegian children detected coronaviruses in 10% of hospitalized children with respiratory tract infections. 6 ...

Second, the attributable risk for severe disease from COVID-19 in children is challenging to discern. ...

Third, children may play a major role in community-based viral transmission. Available data suggest that children may have more upper respiratory tract (including nasopharyngeal carriage), rather than lower respiratory tract involvement.4 There is also evidence of fecal shedding in the stool for several weeks after diagnosis,8 leading to concern about fecal-oral transmission of the
virus, particularly for infants and children who are not toilet-trained, and for viral replication in the gastrointestinal tract.9

... Prolonged viral shedding in symptomatic individuals, combined with shedding in asymptomatic persons, would render contact tracing and other public health measures to mitigate spread less effective.

They also note that the effects on pregnant women is a particular issue, not just for severe disease, but because infants are separated from an infected mother at birth. And any fever in pregnancy risks damage to the fetus.

So that's kids with pregnant moms we also need to exclude from school.


This whole discussion reminds me of people jumping the gun on various statistics before there was enough data to come up with valid numbers. And Fauci jumped the gun claiming no evidence of asymptomatic spread meant there was evidence it wasn't spread without symptoms. He's had to backtrack that. Some people are jumping the gun here instead of waiting until we have sufficient data to know what the effects of sending kids back to school might be.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Nope - it's an effect of your blood type.

Yeah. Genetic.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Nope - it's an effect of your blood type.

Yeah. Genetic.

You are quibbling over "receptor shape" vs "glycoproteins on the surface of mucousal cells". Pedant Ahoy!

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by anduin

Delurking to post. I have a very personal interest in this fight, I caught Covid-19 during a trip to Paris in early March, before the lock-down. I developed symptoms on Saturday March 14, just a small fever and a cough at first, then the symptoms got worse. Cough, tight chest, fever, eventually diarrhoea and lost my sense of small, but things got better after 3 weeks, but I still felt a bit off.

Then the symptoms continued, and continued, and continued.

I'm still sick, I'm one of the Long Covid contingent, tens of thousands of us are congregating online sharing our symptoms, most have been sick for 4 months.

I no longer have covid, I had a negative test 2 weeks ago, but I have a range of symptoms, chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath, brain fog, fatigue, if I over-do physical activity I become extremely fatigued and can't get out of bed.

I've had blood test, everything seems fine, and an inconclusive X-ray, so if things continue as they are I will get a lung scan, I can feel there's something wrong with my lungs. This disease is the worst thing that has happened to me, and for at least 10% of patients it seems to linger is some sort of post-viral infection.

That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing these experiences.

I don't know if you were lurking when I talked about this before, so pardon me if it's repetitious. I had Covid symptoms in June, but I got tested two days after first noticing a fever, and the test was negative. Except for a cough and low-grade fever, all the other symptoms started after I got the negative test. (The symptoms I didn't have were loss of taste or smell, diarrhea, skin rash, or headache.) The symptoms I did have sound a lot like your current after-effect symptoms. But I did recover two weeks later.

I might still have after-after effects, as it were. If I do moderately strenuous work for an hour or so (e.g. mowing the lawn with my manual mower), the weird "shortness of breath without actually feeling short of breath" and the muscle aches through my torso return, similar to how I felt while resting while I was ill. I attributed this to being out of shape following a month of minimal activity, but it matches other people's experience so well (though generally much milder) that it makes me wonder.

No conclusions can be drawn from this. It's just interesting to compare.

I'm sorry you and so many other people have been hit so hard by this. Those symptoms, I can attest, really suck. I'm glad you have the online support group and I hope medical science can get a handle on this.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

In light of recent, um, clarifications, let me see if I can summarize ...


There are a lot of school kids in the US; 50 million (give or take).

If all of them were to contract covid-19, <~300 would die from it.

Germany, Denmark, and Australia have (re-)opened their schools.

No spike in covid-19 cases in those countries, despite schools being open.

So the harm in (re-)opening US schools would be minimal.

That about right, TA?

So, only children are in the schools in the USA? My niece and her husband are teachers. She's 40, he's 50. Do you think none of those 50 million children would infect an adult? Do you think the rate of spread in Denmark, Germany, and Australia is anything remotely like the current rate in the USA?

No, you don't actually believe any of that. You're just trying to support your political beliefs. **** you and the Trump you rode in on.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And I said we don't have the data on the role kids in schools play in spreading COVID. I'm not going to hunt back to where you conflated 'can't get it' with can't spread it.

You are mistaken - I did not post that, ever.

I do understand why you don't want to waste time looking for something that doesn't exist, though.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Obese, diabetics, respiratory disease, cardiac disease, immunocompromised, .... kids do have these medical problems, not just adults.

Yet, none of those millions of allegedly high-risk children are dying from it? How strange. The children which have died from Covid seem to mostly be due to MIS-C, early in the outbreak. Now doctors are aware of that, there will be an extremely low number of deaths of kids.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Now you are arguing straw that because MIS-C has been recognized that is the only problem I could find.

You're being dishonest again.

You mentioned "high risk children" and I asked how they're identified. Since you didn't answer - which is unsurprising, since nobody knows what those alleged "high risk factors" are for kids, I went looking and found that single result.

If paediatricians don't know which children are high risk, you sure as hell don't.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

We have two data sets now, one in S Korea and one in Sweden. Given we have overwhelming evidence kids in schools are main sources for community spread,...

Complete nonsense and again, the exact opposite is true.

Under 10s spread the disease the least in South Korea and the Sweden data was posted long ago.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And you still aren't looking what the effects of returning to schools will be on spread further downstream.

Do you think the parents of those kids are only going to get Covid if their kids give it to them?

I repeat, multiple studies have shown parents are more likely to give it to kids than vice versa.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Some people are jumping the gun here instead of waiting until we have sufficient data to know what the effects of sending kids back to school might be.

The data from countries that haven't shut schools doesn't count, then?

I do admire your ability to only use data that suits your agenda.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

So, only children are in the schools in the USA?

She was summarising my statements, so I'll answer it.

I have pointed out multiple times that adults are more likely to catch Covid from other adults than children.

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

My niece and her husband are teachers. She's 40, he's 50. Do you think none of those 50 million children would infect an adult?

No doubt some kids will infect some adults, but are those teachers going to live in a bubble for the next six months? It's also possible to open schools safely - I'm not proposing sending them all back as though nothing happened. The CDC and other institutions g=have given guidelines of how it should work.

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Do you think the rate of spread in Denmark, Germany, and Australia is anything remotely like the current rate in the USA?

You've rebutted your own point there, mate. Well played.

No, it's not spreading as fast in those countries and their kids have been at school. Hmmm.

Must be something in the idea that kids aren't the major vector here.

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

No, you don't actually believe any of that.

I certainly do.

I've also got the luxury of being able to scroll back to where I said countries leaving schools open were insane, because kids are usually the worst offenders at spreading disease.

However, with the help of hindsight and scientific data garnered since the outbreak began, I can admit I was wrong and that there is very little danger in having schools open.

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

You're just trying to support your political beliefs. **** you and the Trump you rode in on.

Wow, that's a superb case of TDS you've got going there if your immediate thought is that anyone supporting school opening is a Trump supporter.

Outstanding.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What's the point, TA, you don't pay any attention to what people post. You just go on your merry way.

Two studies are not sufficient. No matter how many times you assert the data is complete. What's the opposite of 2?

There are a dozen variables you keep failing to address.

You also keep calling rare or uncommon: essentially zero or unimportant. To use your exact words: "a vanishingly small number of children".

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What's the point, TA, you don't pay any attention to what people post. You just go on your merry way.

Except, as my last post shows, I am quite capable of changing my mind based on evidence.

How about you find evidence supporting your claim of the danger of schools opening?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You also keep calling rare or uncommon: essentially zero or unimportant. To use your exact words: "a vanishingly small number of children".

300 deaths out of 50 million is indeed vanishingly small.

Did you shut all schools during the H1N1 pandemic?

It killed over 1000 American children, more than three times as many as my worst-case scenario from Covid.

Like I said - provide evidence Covid should keep schools shut. That's where I'm leaving it.

[Chris_Halkides]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

It is also used as an anticoagulant, so it perhaps might reduce clotting.

I wondered about that as well. Thrombin and some of the other enzymes in the coagulation system are proteases.

[marting]

There's some interesting stuff in the Korean study.

First, "Index patients" were, for those not in high risk groups which children would not be in, were selected based on the earliest confirmed test in a cluster.

0.5% of children 0-9 y/o were index patients.
2.2% of children 10-19 y/o were index patients.
97.3% were >20 y/o

The study notes that they couldn't detect the direction of transmission so if a child got infected and showed symptoms from another household member who was asymptomatic the child would be designated the index patient.

What is missing from the study is the age distribution of the positive contacts relative to the age distribution of the index patients.

I suspect a lot of the higher percentages of positive contacts amongst the 10-19 y/o index patients were actually infection from the "contacts" Especially given the low percentage on 10-19 y/o index patients.

And the article notes: "we could not determine direction of transmission" so the association between index patients and percent of contacts that were positive may not be an indication of actual infection of contacts by index patients and this is particularly true when the percentage of index patients is so low (2.2% for the 10-19 y/o)

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

[RoMo]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Ok, thanks.

How long are they viable for?
How long are they kept?

The VTM is frozen at -80 and kept for up to a year, dependent on freezer space.

(Sorry fro the late reply).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Except, as my last post shows, I am quite capable of changing my mind based on evidence.

How about you find evidence supporting your claim of the danger of schools opening?

300 deaths out of 50 million is indeed vanishingly small.

Did you shut all schools during the H1N1 pandemic?

It killed over 1000 American children, more than three times as many as my worst-case scenario from Covid.

Like I said - provide evidence Covid should keep schools shut. That's where I'm leaving it.

Your post demonstrates what I posted. You aren't addressing what I posted. You aren't looking at the whole picture. Pediatric deaths are only one measure.

Regardless, you are also wrong about closing schools during flu outbreaks. We do close the schools during flu outbreaks.

Flu Season 2019: Schools Across US Are Closing Despite Lack of CDC Guidance. That's wrong too, there are CDC guidelines.

Guidance for School Administrators to Help Reduce the Spread of Seasonal Influenza in K-12 Schools.

Questions and Answers about CDC Guidance for State and Local Public Health Officials and School A d m i n i strators for School (K-12) Responses to Influenza during the 2009-2010 School Year

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Thanks.


Could that be because (very) few kids got “bad covid”?



So everyone who has long covid had “bad covid” first? As in hospitalization, time in an ICU, on a vent, that sort of thing.

So you have dyspnea (shortness of breath)?

Anecdotal only. We have seen patients who did not require admission to hospital left with long term lung damage. That is longer than we would expect for other forms of pneumonia, but only a few months given the infection is new. Interestingly the CXR on one of the patients was normal, but when we exercised the patient gas exchange was poor explaining the persistent breathlessness. This probably represents a pulmonary vascular problem due to blood clots in the lungs. This may improve given more time.

So whilst bad covid may be more likely to have long term affects, milder covid not requiring hospital admission may also have long term effects in a proportion.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by RoMo

The VTM is frozen at -80 and kept for up to a year, dependent on freezer space.

(Sorry fro the late reply).

No worries - thanks for coming back to it.

That should be long enough to cope with any re-testing needed.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Regardless, you are also wrong about closing schools during flu outbreaks. We do close the schools during flu outbreaks.

You're being completely dishonest again - this is what I said:

Quote:

Did you shut all schools during the H1N1 pandemic?

The answer, by the way, is no. A very few schools closed and affected maybe 500,000 kids, 1% of the total number. And the few schools that did close only did so after multiple pupils had been affected by the virus, i.e. the cat was already out of the bag. And they closed for one or two weeks, not months.

Must try harder.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Unfortunately, no. Or rather, probably not. There are significant weekday artifacts in the U.S. statistics (in other countries as well), caused by testing schedules, lab operation schedules, working schedules of hospital departments and reporting agencies, things like that, across all the different states. Wednesday through Friday is when the weekly highs appear. The numbers always drop Saturdays through Tuesdays.

If they were like that yesterday, what do you make of the stats showing like this?