16 ms·

Beware second waves of Covid-19 if lockdowns eased early: study

107 points by swat535 7y ago

Zenst 7y ago
The virus is growing at different rate in many continents so whilst one may get things under control, the issue shifts and south america and africa do seem to be worrying for many. There will be many waves ahead.
- closeparen 7y ago
  The point is that lockdown is only a stalling tactic, if you release the lockdown before everyone is vaccinated it'll just come right back. Places that have it "under control" are only going to keep it that way if they continue to shelter in place for at least a year.
- pen2l 7y ago
  I'm amazed that it's spreading so fast in US. US is a huge place. Okay NY has a high population density so that makes sense, but outbreaks in Seattle et al. is surprising me and I can't figure out why it's faster than other countries.
  - hnarn 7y ago
    Some guesses why it would spread faster than say Scandinavia: - No public health care, people infect family caretakers. - No paid sick leave means people go to work sick and infect colleagues. - No strong government campaign to enforce working from home, washing hands etc. - No central initiative to track and isolate cases These are just guesses but I'm far from surprised the US is seeing explosive increases. There seems to be no crisis awareness and there's no strong public welfare.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - _ph_ 7y ago
    I don't think the speed of spread is fundamentaly different between most countries. Unless strong measures like lock-downs are taken, we are talking about an exponential development. Based on that, the different speeds of spread would denote different sections on the time line. That means, different time spans between the first infections in a country and the time, systematic testing and countermeasures are taken. Based on that, one can conclude that e.g. Italy was one of the first European countries being hit by a spreading infection and it took too long till systematic testing began. Likewise, in the US there was too much time between the first cases and testing, which basically just began.
  - IgorPartola 7y ago
    The US is a well off country and we have increasingly started moving all over it. I personally have family and friends on both coasts. I don't visit them much but I have many reasons to travel. Our travel is also extremely cheap. A friend of mine routinely drives from CT to NM and back. She has very limited income, yet is able to do that. Also, it doesn't help that our leadership has completely failed to act on this situation, and is continuing to mostly fail to do so. This virus should rightly be called the Trump virus in the US. Our president* not only failed to act, he did things that actively enabled COVID-19 to spread faster. In these kinds of circumstances it's no wonder it's spreading so fast.
    - malandrew 7y ago
      > Also, it doesn't help that our leadership has completely failed to act on this situation If we're being honest here, we as Americans have failed to act. The Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Koreans and Singaporeans all have no issues with all wearing facemasks in public for example. Go to any supermarket in America right now. Almost no one will be wearing masks. That's just one example of everyone doing their part. What every individual is doing in those countries contributes to their success in keeping things under control. If anything blaming leadership instead of each and every one of us acknowledging how we could do better is part of the problem. It's always easier to blame others than to take responsibility.
      - dba7dba 7y ago
        Honestly, I think US officials are NOT asking people to wear masks because they are afraid that it will cause supply to dry up, preventing medical staff from acquiring them. All nations that have had better result of slowing covid-19 are all in places where wearing face mask in public is the norm.
      - DangitBobby 7y ago
        I was told not to buy masks because healthcare providers needed them... We were getting clearly contradictory messaging (don't buy masks because it won't help you and also doctors need them) but for me the main takeaway was to leave the masks for those who really needed them.
  - sanguy 7y ago
    Canadian living in the US here. It is amazing (and absolutely terrifying) as to how belligerent Americans are to any sense of being told what to do. A good % of them will purposely do the opposite just to exercise their freedoms. So in a situation of lock-downs, shelter in places, and generally strong advice to socially distance you have: - Neighbor's continually inviting us to BBQ's and dinner parties - Bars are closed so people are having tailgate parties outside of the local liquor stores with friends - Nobody respecting 2m distancing at groceries, even with tape lines to indicate safe spacing - Assholes purposely coughing and as they do so muttering "corona" in public places treating it like a joke - Young people on tiktok and other social media doing things like spitting, licking, or coughing on others/foods. Unfortunately this is not selective in that those acting like idiots are not the only impacting themselves, but they are helping the spread and impacting others.
    - Hokusai 7y ago
      > It is amazing (and absolutely terrifying) as to how belligerent Americans are to any sense of being told what to do. A good % of them will purposely do the opposite just to exercise their freedoms. "Small government" is part of many TV stations indoctrination. The idea that any government initiative, except for war, should not be taken seriously and should be defunded is hammered on the American public. So, there is no balance between what should be run for the good of the community and personal freedoms. > To be very honest it fully deserves what occurs as so many are poking this in the eye asking for her vengeance. Sadly many people are as much victims as executors. Many American citizens have learned to hate the common good and bring people to power with the same mindset. For me it is hard to think that people that never got a chance, that never got proper education, that is only following what other taught them is deserving of such suffering. I hope that the reality of this situation may help to break that cycle. I do not expect this overnight, but, it may come as a change in the long run.
    - smkellat 7y ago
      What do you expect after three years of #Resistance, Russia-related conspiracies, the Mueller mess, and worse in this country? Frankly I am surprised that we have any shred of compliance anywhere at all. The state briefing here in Ohio today said we're expecting things to hit the multiples thousands per day in late April for diagnoses so this situation can still accelerate yet.
  - Hokusai 7y ago
    > I'm amazed that it's spreading so fast in US. That speed is an attribute of exponential growth. It has happened in all countries. One day there is one death a couple of weeks latter a hundred, the lock down comes shortly after. In four months there are at least 500,000 infected from just one case. That is fast. > why it's faster than other countries. My guess is that it is not faster, it is just a lack of testing that was hiding the real numbers. Deaths have a more tragic impact that infections and are easier to count. The number of deaths is an indicator of the real number of infections the country had two weeks to three weeks ago. As, the number of currently infected will result in deaths two to three weeks from now. That is why a lock down of three weeks is the bare minimum amount to have any kind of impact, even that is not enough to really keep it under check.
  - thomk 7y ago
    The virus lives for days on surfaces. Packages and mail can carry it. I'm guessing we are shipping the virus nonstop, worldwide. I'm surprised it isn't spreading faster.
  - stevenwoo 7y ago
    Based on reports from different parts of USA, it’s been here since February and spreading and we just didn’t test patients/corpses until it was community spread. It’s still hard to get tested unless you are sick enough to be admitted to a hospital except in New York. Medical personnel in New Orleans think their outbreak started around Mardi Gras. Reports from airports had people only being screened minimally right up until they shutdown eu ingress. There was widespread (different states) proclamation that life should go on as normal and there are cases on both coasts where one international traveler spread it at a party and then gives it someone who goes to another party and exposes hundreds of people. It’s the same story as what happened in Northern Italy but all over the USA. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-24/coronavirus-trump-national-golf-course-birthday-party https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-24/coronavi... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/us/coronavirus-westport-connecticut-party-zero.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/us/coronavirus-westport-c... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/26/new-orleans-surviving-katrina-battles-covid-19-coronavirus https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/26/new-orleans-... Just based on the news reports alone this seemed inevitable with the president calling it a hoax early on.
    - selimthegrim 7y ago
      I live in New Orleans. All expectations are for the hospitals to hit capacity next week. And since this is majority service industry town no one really has any source of income beyond then either.
  - zer00eyz 7y ago
    If you want to understand how this is spreading the way it is and why go look at the Westport cluster: 50 people attend a part, 20 of them come out positive.
  - justforyou 7y ago
    Because a significant portion of the population and political establishment refuses to face the reality of the situation, and by doing so has created incredibly fertile conditions for spread of the virus.
- lazyjones 7y ago
  Many people confuse virus growth rates with positive test rates (limited by testing), owing to governments testing slowly in order to claim positive lockdown effects (slower positive test rate growth). For example, here in Austria the tests are increasing by ~10% per day currently and they pat themselves on the back when positive tests grow "only" 15% per day. Meanwhile, deaths are increasing by 30-50% per day. If Iceland with its extensive tests has concluded that 1% of their population is currently infected, it's naive to assume that more accessible countries where covid19 spread earlier are less affected.
  - blattimwind 7y ago
    Death numbers may be a better proxy for how widespread it is, but they suffer from even larger lag than infection numbers and less clear counting rules (see: Russia, and various other countries, not counting deaths of COVID-19 infected, if they had {any, some} prior illness).
    - jeremyjh 7y ago
      Even in Italy the death numbers may be signficantly under-counted. https://www.corriere.it/politica/20_marzo_26/the-real-death-toll-for-covid-19-is-at-least-4-times-the-official-numbers-b5af0edc-6eeb-11ea-925b-a0c3cdbe1130.shtml https://www.corriere.it/politica/20_marzo_26/the-real-death-...
    - Zenst 7y ago
      Sadly you are right, though as mentioned by others, not all testing in countries and registration of deaths are equal. But it is probably the best metric so far alas. However, hold a thought for postal workers in a few months as they will be asked to monitor people's mailboxes filling up as a sign that somebody died inside and nobody knows.
  - cycrutchfield 7y ago
    >If Iceland with its extensive tests has concluded that 1% of their population is currently infected People really need to stop parroting this. Please see the article this claim came from (https://nordiclifescience.org/covid-19-first-results-of-the-voluntary-screening-on-iceland/ https://nordiclifescience.org/covid-19-first-results-of-the-...). Note how it says voluntary screening, not randomly-selected screening? Since it is voluntary, there is likely a significant selection bias. It is much more probable that the actual population infected rate at the time of that screening was much less than 1%.
ck2 7y ago
This isn't even the beginning of the first wave except for a couple front line states like Washington and NY https://covidactnow.org/state/NY https://covidactnow.org/state/NY
united893 7y ago
Link to the pdf?
- mtmail 7y ago
  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(20)30073-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2... (PDF link on the top-right of the page)
drtillberg 7y ago
I read the article to say: lockdowns don't solve anything, the virus still lurks. Lockdowns are a public policy cul-de-sac. The Korea solution of extremely aggressive testing is the only way for a nation to function effectively while also guarding against the novel coronavirus.
- vkou 7y ago
  Lockdowns buy you time to institute the Korean model.
  - jonplackett 7y ago
    In the UK we don’t seem to have realised this yet. Our gov’s plan was do no testing and just sort of hope it infected everyone so we’d have herd immunity but somehow without killing too many people. The virus had other plans
  - lazyjones 7y ago
    How long? Buying a week or less isn't worth the damage to the economy.
    - Cerium 7y ago
      As long as it takes to get ahead.
    - elorant 7y ago
      A week won't do shit. You need a couple of months for the curve to become flat and from there on you go to targeted lockdowns through a lot of testing.
    - vkou 7y ago
      1. The economy is going to be destroyed regardless. Right-thinking people currently don't want to travel, don't want to eat out, don't want to go to entertainment venues. If you lift the lockdown tomorrow, without actually controlling the virus, all of those industries are still going to die (Along with a few million people), with all the knock-on effects. Also, once everyone expects a recession, people reign in spending, thus making that expectation self-fulfilling. 2. There's every reason to believe that a lockdown significantly cuts down R, even to below 1, thus buying a lot more than a week. It certainly did in Wuhan. Instead of griping about the economy, why don't we actually work on measures that will let us leave lockdown?
kurthr 7y ago
Run your own model... play the scariest game! https://neherlab.org/covid19/ https://neherlab.org/covid19/ Presented recently as Show HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22616456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22616456
refurb 7y ago
The government is in a real conundrum when it comes to relaxing the lockdown. There are a few things we do know: - It's impossible to keep the lockdown in place for long enough to completely eliminate the virus. Why? Because there are still essential workers out there, giving it to each other and their families. - Because we can't eliminate the virus, the main goal to limit spread so that our existing medical resources can handle it. - End the lockdown too early, and like a wildfire, it will spark up again in a few weeks and we're back at square one (or close to it). - Keep the lockdown too long and the impact to the economy will only get worse, requiring massive gov't bailouts/support. The longer we're locked down, the longer it's going to take for the economy to recover. What seems to make sense to me is, keep the lockdown in place long enough to get in front of it. Basically, enough testing so that new cases can be immediately identified and quarantined. That alone will have a big impact. Then start to identify other essential services and slowly relax restrictions while at the same time keeping up the early identification and isolation of new cases. If things flare up, stop and get in front of it. Then continue to relax the lockdown. The only way I can see a rapid end to the lockdown is if we either get a vaccine approved (and mass vaccination occurs) or a very effective treatment is found that takes the pressure off of medical resources.
- blattimwind 7y ago
  The US is currently experiencing the root of the wave, the face of it is yet to come, then comes the crest. Only then can you start to see what comes after it... the US and almost everyone else is a looooong stretch (exponentially speaking) away from getting in front of anything here. Your administration speaking of "open churches for Easter" is entirely and utterly delusional.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  > Keep the lockdown too long and the impact to the economy will only get worse, requiring massive gov't bailouts/support. The longer we're locked down, the longer it's going to take for the economy to recover. It's bad for the economy if a million more people than necessary die because our healthcare system was overwhelmed. Yes, the economy is going to suffer no matter what we do. But ending the lockdown too early will make the situation worse, not better.
crazygringo 7y ago
The NYT published a simulator yesterday that shows infections/deaths over time according to lockdown lengths: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/25/opinion/coronavirus-trump-reopen-america.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/25/opinion/coron... The first two graphs show the incredibly dramatic reduction in infections and deaths if we lock down for 2 months as opposed to just 2 weeks. But what scares me is the sudden uptick at the end of the period shown. And the article addresses it: > A skeptic will note that these measures don’t seem to prevent a surge in infections so much as delay them (in some cases so that the impact is pushed beyond the period that this model tracks). There’s something to that: We may see a resurgence whenever we let up, at least until we have a vaccine or herd immunity. But this is what scares me. Whenever the lockdown ends, it's almost like we're back to square one. Yes, of course we have time to manufacture more ventilators and masks and everything else. But I don't think anyone's contemplating a year-long lockdown until a vaccine might be ready. So somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't developing herd immunity seems like the only realistic scenario here? Which basically means just enough lockdown to "flatten the curve" but then essentially give the virus free reign -- accepting that people will die, but still saving many more lives than right now (because enough ventilators, etc.). Yet virtually nobody seems to be talking about this -- about herd immunity, about how there's zero chance of a lockdown eradicating the virus, about coming to terms with what "flattening the curve" really means and when we decide it's been flattened enough. I suppose that's where the national conversation will have to go in the next couple weeks/months... but it seems better to be having it up-front.
- comicjk 7y ago
  Just because people are out and about doesn't mean we have to go back to the old value of R. In order to make easing lockdown viable, we need to reduce R for people outside, in every way we can afford. Masks for everyone, of the highest quality we can manage without hurting healthcare. Continue distancing. Constant surface cleaning and air filtration. Mass antibody tests, so we know who has already had it. With all of this, and lockdown for critical outbreak areas, we should be able to keep the curve under control.
- mcnamaratw 7y ago
  "Yet virtually nobody seems to be talking about this -- about herd immunity, about how there's zero chance of a lockdown eradicating the virus, about coming to terms with what "flattening the curve" really means and when we decide it's been flattened enough." To me this seems like what everyone is talking about all the time.
DeonPenny 7y ago
I think NYC might of solved it with the antibodies test. They plan on letting people with the antibodies go back to work. Plus the test is easier to make that the test for the virus.
- jeremyjh 7y ago
  That doesn't really solve anything. If 20% of our population got the disease in the same six month period the health care system would collapse entirely and we'd be looking at up to 10% CFR. Millions and millions of people dead.
  - bagacrap 7y ago
    99% of cases are mild as per Korea's data, so no, we would not have 10% mortality
    - jeremyjh 7y ago
      You can have a 1% CFR if your health services are functioning. The point is that they won't be if everyone gets it at the same time. In any case 99% are not mild; at least 20% are serious and require medical intervention. If you stop treating them...they die.
      - DeonPenny 7y ago
        The data doesn't show 20% need medical treatment. 1% need that. 19% are getting as sick as the flu at most. 80% literally couldn't tell if they were sick or not.
        xref 7y ago
        I haven’t seen any numbers of confirmed infections that match a 1% hospitalization rate. Heck I haven’t even seen an ICU rate that low. Have a link?
        7y ago
anonsubmit2671 7y ago
Watch thunderf00t's videos and Paul Beckwith's. Without a vaccine and pervasive testing, isolation resets the clock on the pandemic curve and it starts like Groundhog Day all over again, but at a potentially lower level. It will keep happening over and over again, especially spreading N <--> S hemispheres with the seasons. It will keep happening until either everyone is infected, resulting in hundreds of millions of cumulative deaths, indefinite isolation, or a vaccine is widely-deployed. That is reality.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  > especially spreading N <--> S hemispheres with the seasons Temperature seems to have no impact on transmission rate in Brazil.
  - kgabis 7y ago
    Isn't it too soon to assume that? Viruses decay faster at higher temperatures so it should have some effect on R0. With other measures like social distancing, masks, and remote work it might lower it below 1.
    - marcosdumay 7y ago
      There are already dozens of severely ill patients on many cities in Brazil, what is the easy to compare metric. The rate of growth of cold and hot cities isn't very different, and hasn't been very different from the untreated growth on the rest of the world.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
It doesn't have to be a disaster to extend the lock down (aka some restrictions). Remote work exists. Contactless food delivery exists. Homeschooling is easier than ever. We just need to focus on helping people make those transitions. We need to stop focusing on "just say no" and start focusing on "You can say yes to these things. We can help you make that choice."
- bagacrap 7y ago
  this is a very white-collar centric view of the world. Anyone who's living paycheck to paycheck in an hourly job, or a small business owner, is unlikely to be able to work from home. And how do you work from home and homeschool at the same time? Anyway, even if you personally can get by, there will be mass failures to make rent in both commercial and residential sectors which will destroy financial markets and that will actually affect you even if you have a cool tech job in SF.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    I have known people who homeschooled to make life easier. I was one of them. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22681334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22681334 Takeout is allowed. Food delivery is allowed. Amazon and grocery stores are hiring. Those are not white collar jobs. I've been dirt poor for years. I do remote work. I'm a freelance writer, not a programmer. It helped me establish an income and pay down debt while homeless. If you think remote work is only for the privileged few, that's your bias showing, not mine. I have been promoting remote work and gig work as a solution for homeless people for years. I run several websites and a few reddits supporting that model. I've never gotten traction. Maybe I will never get traction. But I've absolutely done all of the above and not because I have some privileged upper class life. Quite the opposite. I've done it to accommodate my health problems and the needs of two special needs kids.
- dtnewman 7y ago
  There's a limit to how many people can work remotely. Certainly, factory workers, restaurant employees, healthcare professionals, retail workers and bank tellers can't do this. And homeschooling isn't for everyone... But it's virtually impossible to do if both parents are working full time. Not to mention the effect this has on children. It's very difficult for children to be socially isolated. It's good for their mental health to be around other kids.
dmfdmf 7y ago
FWIW, I will throw in my two cents. This shutdown needs to end immediately. This is absolutely crushing the middle class and the economy. I'd bet that many of the small shops and restaurants I used to go to will never reopen. These low-margin businesses cannot cope with a week long closure, let alone four. We are already looking at waves of rent/debt defaults followed by massive layoffs and then a deep recession if not a depression. And if the government's response is unlimited money creation (for the banks or for individuals, it does not matter) then we are looking at a potential monetary or dollar crisis. This decision to shutdown the economy has been made on the misguided assumption that you can save the healthcare system in isolation from the rest of the system of production in which it resides. It is also assuming that saving lives supersedes any other consideration, especially money or economics. We are hearing this now from the media who already pre-attacking Trump for hinting he wants to end the shutdown -- that he is valuing billionaires or dollars over lives. This is shear non-sense and ignores the fact that people are not ghosts, we need to work in order to stay alive and live. I am reading on many forums about people who are about to lose their business that they spent 20 years building or their homes if they cannot get back to work soon. This is not just narrowly about lives lost to the virus but living for everyone. Of course we will do everything reasonable to help the afflicted but shutting down the economy should not be one of them. If you want to still hold to the assumption that only lives matter in this decision then think about this. Think of how many alcoholics will be created or relapse from spending days on end with nothing to do, bored in their home. How many of those will eventually die of alcoholism or kill people with their car? What about anorexics who recover but under quarantine and the anxiety of virus scaremongering relapse and ultimately starve to death? If the economy goes into a recession or depression (a fait accompli in my view) then how many people are going commit suicide which always goes up in bad times? How many people will die in just these three examples 100K, 200K, 1M people? These are not fantasy deaths, it will really happen but they will never be blamed on the shutdown. It is a real hidden cost, as real as those who die from CV19. There are real life-and-death altering consequences beyond just those unfortunate to get this virus.
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  It's not a question of leftist media. When the Black Death happened, feudalism ended. It's a simple as that. Do you think the virus gives a shit about how highly leveraged our system is?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

107 points by swat535 7y ago

The virus is growing at different rate in many continents so whilst one may get things under control, the issue shifts and south america and africa do seem to be worrying for many. There will be many waves ahead.

closeparen 7y ago
The point is that lockdown is only a stalling tactic, if you release the lockdown before everyone is vaccinated it'll just come right back. Places that have it "under control" are only going to keep it that way if they continue to shelter in place for at least a year.
pen2l 7y ago
I'm amazed that it's spreading so fast in US. US is a huge place. Okay NY has a high population density so that makes sense, but outbreaks in Seattle et al. is surprising me and I can't figure out why it's faster than other countries.
- hnarn 7y ago
  Some guesses why it would spread faster than say Scandinavia: - No public health care, people infect family caretakers. - No paid sick leave means people go to work sick and infect colleagues. - No strong government campaign to enforce working from home, washing hands etc. - No central initiative to track and isolate cases These are just guesses but I'm far from surprised the US is seeing explosive increases. There seems to be no crisis awareness and there's no strong public welfare.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- _ph_ 7y ago
  I don't think the speed of spread is fundamentaly different between most countries. Unless strong measures like lock-downs are taken, we are talking about an exponential development. Based on that, the different speeds of spread would denote different sections on the time line. That means, different time spans between the first infections in a country and the time, systematic testing and countermeasures are taken. Based on that, one can conclude that e.g. Italy was one of the first European countries being hit by a spreading infection and it took too long till systematic testing began. Likewise, in the US there was too much time between the first cases and testing, which basically just began.
- IgorPartola 7y ago
  The US is a well off country and we have increasingly started moving all over it. I personally have family and friends on both coasts. I don't visit them much but I have many reasons to travel. Our travel is also extremely cheap. A friend of mine routinely drives from CT to NM and back. She has very limited income, yet is able to do that. Also, it doesn't help that our leadership has completely failed to act on this situation, and is continuing to mostly fail to do so. This virus should rightly be called the Trump virus in the US. Our president* not only failed to act, he did things that actively enabled COVID-19 to spread faster. In these kinds of circumstances it's no wonder it's spreading so fast.
  - malandrew 7y ago
    > Also, it doesn't help that our leadership has completely failed to act on this situation If we're being honest here, we as Americans have failed to act. The Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Koreans and Singaporeans all have no issues with all wearing facemasks in public for example. Go to any supermarket in America right now. Almost no one will be wearing masks. That's just one example of everyone doing their part. What every individual is doing in those countries contributes to their success in keeping things under control. If anything blaming leadership instead of each and every one of us acknowledging how we could do better is part of the problem. It's always easier to blame others than to take responsibility.
    - dba7dba 7y ago
      Honestly, I think US officials are NOT asking people to wear masks because they are afraid that it will cause supply to dry up, preventing medical staff from acquiring them. All nations that have had better result of slowing covid-19 are all in places where wearing face mask in public is the norm.
    - DangitBobby 7y ago
      I was told not to buy masks because healthcare providers needed them... We were getting clearly contradictory messaging (don't buy masks because it won't help you and also doctors need them) but for me the main takeaway was to leave the masks for those who really needed them.
- sanguy 7y ago
  Canadian living in the US here. It is amazing (and absolutely terrifying) as to how belligerent Americans are to any sense of being told what to do. A good % of them will purposely do the opposite just to exercise their freedoms. So in a situation of lock-downs, shelter in places, and generally strong advice to socially distance you have: - Neighbor's continually inviting us to BBQ's and dinner parties - Bars are closed so people are having tailgate parties outside of the local liquor stores with friends - Nobody respecting 2m distancing at groceries, even with tape lines to indicate safe spacing - Assholes purposely coughing and as they do so muttering "corona" in public places treating it like a joke - Young people on tiktok and other social media doing things like spitting, licking, or coughing on others/foods. Unfortunately this is not selective in that those acting like idiots are not the only impacting themselves, but they are helping the spread and impacting others.
  - Hokusai 7y ago
    > It is amazing (and absolutely terrifying) as to how belligerent Americans are to any sense of being told what to do. A good % of them will purposely do the opposite just to exercise their freedoms. "Small government" is part of many TV stations indoctrination. The idea that any government initiative, except for war, should not be taken seriously and should be defunded is hammered on the American public. So, there is no balance between what should be run for the good of the community and personal freedoms. > To be very honest it fully deserves what occurs as so many are poking this in the eye asking for her vengeance. Sadly many people are as much victims as executors. Many American citizens have learned to hate the common good and bring people to power with the same mindset. For me it is hard to think that people that never got a chance, that never got proper education, that is only following what other taught them is deserving of such suffering. I hope that the reality of this situation may help to break that cycle. I do not expect this overnight, but, it may come as a change in the long run.
  - smkellat 7y ago
    What do you expect after three years of #Resistance, Russia-related conspiracies, the Mueller mess, and worse in this country? Frankly I am surprised that we have any shred of compliance anywhere at all. The state briefing here in Ohio today said we're expecting things to hit the multiples thousands per day in late April for diagnoses so this situation can still accelerate yet.
- Hokusai 7y ago
  > I'm amazed that it's spreading so fast in US. That speed is an attribute of exponential growth. It has happened in all countries. One day there is one death a couple of weeks latter a hundred, the lock down comes shortly after. In four months there are at least 500,000 infected from just one case. That is fast. > why it's faster than other countries. My guess is that it is not faster, it is just a lack of testing that was hiding the real numbers. Deaths have a more tragic impact that infections and are easier to count. The number of deaths is an indicator of the real number of infections the country had two weeks to three weeks ago. As, the number of currently infected will result in deaths two to three weeks from now. That is why a lock down of three weeks is the bare minimum amount to have any kind of impact, even that is not enough to really keep it under check.
- thomk 7y ago
  The virus lives for days on surfaces. Packages and mail can carry it. I'm guessing we are shipping the virus nonstop, worldwide. I'm surprised it isn't spreading faster.
- stevenwoo 7y ago
  Based on reports from different parts of USA, it’s been here since February and spreading and we just didn’t test patients/corpses until it was community spread. It’s still hard to get tested unless you are sick enough to be admitted to a hospital except in New York. Medical personnel in New Orleans think their outbreak started around Mardi Gras. Reports from airports had people only being screened minimally right up until they shutdown eu ingress. There was widespread (different states) proclamation that life should go on as normal and there are cases on both coasts where one international traveler spread it at a party and then gives it someone who goes to another party and exposes hundreds of people. It’s the same story as what happened in Northern Italy but all over the USA. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-24/coronavirus-trump-national-golf-course-birthday-party https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-24/coronavi... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/us/coronavirus-westport-connecticut-party-zero.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/us/coronavirus-westport-c... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/26/new-orleans-surviving-katrina-battles-covid-19-coronavirus https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/26/new-orleans-... Just based on the news reports alone this seemed inevitable with the president calling it a hoax early on.
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    I live in New Orleans. All expectations are for the hospitals to hit capacity next week. And since this is majority service industry town no one really has any source of income beyond then either.
- zer00eyz 7y ago
  If you want to understand how this is spreading the way it is and why go look at the Westport cluster: 50 people attend a part, 20 of them come out positive.
- justforyou 7y ago
  Because a significant portion of the population and political establishment refuses to face the reality of the situation, and by doing so has created incredibly fertile conditions for spread of the virus.
lazyjones 7y ago
Many people confuse virus growth rates with positive test rates (limited by testing), owing to governments testing slowly in order to claim positive lockdown effects (slower positive test rate growth). For example, here in Austria the tests are increasing by ~10% per day currently and they pat themselves on the back when positive tests grow "only" 15% per day. Meanwhile, deaths are increasing by 30-50% per day. If Iceland with its extensive tests has concluded that 1% of their population is currently infected, it's naive to assume that more accessible countries where covid19 spread earlier are less affected.
- blattimwind 7y ago
  Death numbers may be a better proxy for how widespread it is, but they suffer from even larger lag than infection numbers and less clear counting rules (see: Russia, and various other countries, not counting deaths of COVID-19 infected, if they had {any, some} prior illness).
  - jeremyjh 7y ago
    Even in Italy the death numbers may be signficantly under-counted. https://www.corriere.it/politica/20_marzo_26/the-real-death-toll-for-covid-19-is-at-least-4-times-the-official-numbers-b5af0edc-6eeb-11ea-925b-a0c3cdbe1130.shtml https://www.corriere.it/politica/20_marzo_26/the-real-death-...
  - Zenst 7y ago
    Sadly you are right, though as mentioned by others, not all testing in countries and registration of deaths are equal. But it is probably the best metric so far alas. However, hold a thought for postal workers in a few months as they will be asked to monitor people's mailboxes filling up as a sign that somebody died inside and nobody knows.
- cycrutchfield 7y ago
  >If Iceland with its extensive tests has concluded that 1% of their population is currently infected People really need to stop parroting this. Please see the article this claim came from (https://nordiclifescience.org/covid-19-first-results-of-the-voluntary-screening-on-iceland/ https://nordiclifescience.org/covid-19-first-results-of-the-...). Note how it says voluntary screening, not randomly-selected screening? Since it is voluntary, there is likely a significant selection bias. It is much more probable that the actual population infected rate at the time of that screening was much less than 1%.

ck2 7y ago

This isn't even the beginning of the first wave except for a couple front line states like Washington and NY https://covidactnow.org/state/NY https://covidactnow.org/state/NY

united893 7y ago

Link to the pdf?

mtmail 7y ago
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(20)30073-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2... (PDF link on the top-right of the page)

drtillberg 7y ago

I read the article to say: lockdowns don't solve anything, the virus still lurks. Lockdowns are a public policy cul-de-sac. The Korea solution of extremely aggressive testing is the only way for a nation to function effectively while also guarding against the novel coronavirus.

vkou 7y ago
Lockdowns buy you time to institute the Korean model.
- jonplackett 7y ago
  In the UK we don’t seem to have realised this yet. Our gov’s plan was do no testing and just sort of hope it infected everyone so we’d have herd immunity but somehow without killing too many people. The virus had other plans
- lazyjones 7y ago
  How long? Buying a week or less isn't worth the damage to the economy.
  - Cerium 7y ago
    As long as it takes to get ahead.
  - elorant 7y ago
    A week won't do shit. You need a couple of months for the curve to become flat and from there on you go to targeted lockdowns through a lot of testing.
  - vkou 7y ago
    1. The economy is going to be destroyed regardless. Right-thinking people currently don't want to travel, don't want to eat out, don't want to go to entertainment venues. If you lift the lockdown tomorrow, without actually controlling the virus, all of those industries are still going to die (Along with a few million people), with all the knock-on effects. Also, once everyone expects a recession, people reign in spending, thus making that expectation self-fulfilling. 2. There's every reason to believe that a lockdown significantly cuts down R, even to below 1, thus buying a lot more than a week. It certainly did in Wuhan. Instead of griping about the economy, why don't we actually work on measures that will let us leave lockdown?

kurthr 7y ago

Run your own model... play the scariest game! https://neherlab.org/covid19/ https://neherlab.org/covid19/ Presented recently as Show HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22616456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22616456

refurb 7y ago

The government is in a real conundrum when it comes to relaxing the lockdown. There are a few things we do know: - It's impossible to keep the lockdown in place for long enough to completely eliminate the virus. Why? Because there are still essential workers out there, giving it to each other and their families. - Because we can't eliminate the virus, the main goal to limit spread so that our existing medical resources can handle it. - End the lockdown too early, and like a wildfire, it will spark up again in a few weeks and we're back at square one (or close to it). - Keep the lockdown too long and the impact to the economy will only get worse, requiring massive gov't bailouts/support. The longer we're locked down, the longer it's going to take for the economy to recover. What seems to make sense to me is, keep the lockdown in place long enough to get in front of it. Basically, enough testing so that new cases can be immediately identified and quarantined. That alone will have a big impact. Then start to identify other essential services and slowly relax restrictions while at the same time keeping up the early identification and isolation of new cases. If things flare up, stop and get in front of it. Then continue to relax the lockdown. The only way I can see a rapid end to the lockdown is if we either get a vaccine approved (and mass vaccination occurs) or a very effective treatment is found that takes the pressure off of medical resources.

blattimwind 7y ago
The US is currently experiencing the root of the wave, the face of it is yet to come, then comes the crest. Only then can you start to see what comes after it... the US and almost everyone else is a looooong stretch (exponentially speaking) away from getting in front of anything here. Your administration speaking of "open churches for Easter" is entirely and utterly delusional.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
> Keep the lockdown too long and the impact to the economy will only get worse, requiring massive gov't bailouts/support. The longer we're locked down, the longer it's going to take for the economy to recover. It's bad for the economy if a million more people than necessary die because our healthcare system was overwhelmed. Yes, the economy is going to suffer no matter what we do. But ending the lockdown too early will make the situation worse, not better.

crazygringo 7y ago

The NYT published a simulator yesterday that shows infections/deaths over time according to lockdown lengths: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/25/opinion/coronavirus-trump-reopen-america.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/25/opinion/coron... The first two graphs show the incredibly dramatic reduction in infections and deaths if we lock down for 2 months as opposed to just 2 weeks. But what scares me is the sudden uptick at the end of the period shown. And the article addresses it: > A skeptic will note that these measures don’t seem to prevent a surge in infections so much as delay them (in some cases so that the impact is pushed beyond the period that this model tracks). There’s something to that: We may see a resurgence whenever we let up, at least until we have a vaccine or herd immunity. But this is what scares me. Whenever the lockdown ends, it's almost like we're back to square one. Yes, of course we have time to manufacture more ventilators and masks and everything else. But I don't think anyone's contemplating a year-long lockdown until a vaccine might be ready. So somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't developing herd immunity seems like the only realistic scenario here? Which basically means just enough lockdown to "flatten the curve" but then essentially give the virus free reign -- accepting that people will die, but still saving many more lives than right now (because enough ventilators, etc.). Yet virtually nobody seems to be talking about this -- about herd immunity, about how there's zero chance of a lockdown eradicating the virus, about coming to terms with what "flattening the curve" really means and when we decide it's been flattened enough. I suppose that's where the national conversation will have to go in the next couple weeks/months... but it seems better to be having it up-front.

comicjk 7y ago
Just because people are out and about doesn't mean we have to go back to the old value of R. In order to make easing lockdown viable, we need to reduce R for people outside, in every way we can afford. Masks for everyone, of the highest quality we can manage without hurting healthcare. Continue distancing. Constant surface cleaning and air filtration. Mass antibody tests, so we know who has already had it. With all of this, and lockdown for critical outbreak areas, we should be able to keep the curve under control.
mcnamaratw 7y ago
"Yet virtually nobody seems to be talking about this -- about herd immunity, about how there's zero chance of a lockdown eradicating the virus, about coming to terms with what "flattening the curve" really means and when we decide it's been flattened enough." To me this seems like what everyone is talking about all the time.

DeonPenny 7y ago

I think NYC might of solved it with the antibodies test. They plan on letting people with the antibodies go back to work. Plus the test is easier to make that the test for the virus.

jeremyjh 7y ago
That doesn't really solve anything. If 20% of our population got the disease in the same six month period the health care system would collapse entirely and we'd be looking at up to 10% CFR. Millions and millions of people dead.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  99% of cases are mild as per Korea's data, so no, we would not have 10% mortality
  - jeremyjh 7y ago
    You can have a 1% CFR if your health services are functioning. The point is that they won't be if everyone gets it at the same time. In any case 99% are not mild; at least 20% are serious and require medical intervention. If you stop treating them...they die.
    - DeonPenny 7y ago
      The data doesn't show 20% need medical treatment. 1% need that. 19% are getting as sick as the flu at most. 80% literally couldn't tell if they were sick or not.
      - xref 7y ago
        I haven’t seen any numbers of confirmed infections that match a 1% hospitalization rate. Heck I haven’t even seen an ICU rate that low. Have a link?
        7y ago

anonsubmit2671 7y ago

Watch thunderf00t's videos and Paul Beckwith's. Without a vaccine and pervasive testing, isolation resets the clock on the pandemic curve and it starts like Groundhog Day all over again, but at a potentially lower level. It will keep happening over and over again, especially spreading N <--> S hemispheres with the seasons. It will keep happening until either everyone is infected, resulting in hundreds of millions of cumulative deaths, indefinite isolation, or a vaccine is widely-deployed. That is reality.

marcosdumay 7y ago
> especially spreading N <--> S hemispheres with the seasons Temperature seems to have no impact on transmission rate in Brazil.
- kgabis 7y ago
  Isn't it too soon to assume that? Viruses decay faster at higher temperatures so it should have some effect on R0. With other measures like social distancing, masks, and remote work it might lower it below 1.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    There are already dozens of severely ill patients on many cities in Brazil, what is the easy to compare metric. The rate of growth of cold and hot cities isn't very different, and hasn't been very different from the untreated growth on the rest of the world.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

It doesn't have to be a disaster to extend the lock down (aka some restrictions). Remote work exists. Contactless food delivery exists. Homeschooling is easier than ever. We just need to focus on helping people make those transitions. We need to stop focusing on "just say no" and start focusing on "You can say yes to these things. We can help you make that choice."

bagacrap 7y ago
this is a very white-collar centric view of the world. Anyone who's living paycheck to paycheck in an hourly job, or a small business owner, is unlikely to be able to work from home. And how do you work from home and homeschool at the same time? Anyway, even if you personally can get by, there will be mass failures to make rent in both commercial and residential sectors which will destroy financial markets and that will actually affect you even if you have a cool tech job in SF.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  I have known people who homeschooled to make life easier. I was one of them. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22681334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22681334 Takeout is allowed. Food delivery is allowed. Amazon and grocery stores are hiring. Those are not white collar jobs. I've been dirt poor for years. I do remote work. I'm a freelance writer, not a programmer. It helped me establish an income and pay down debt while homeless. If you think remote work is only for the privileged few, that's your bias showing, not mine. I have been promoting remote work and gig work as a solution for homeless people for years. I run several websites and a few reddits supporting that model. I've never gotten traction. Maybe I will never get traction. But I've absolutely done all of the above and not because I have some privileged upper class life. Quite the opposite. I've done it to accommodate my health problems and the needs of two special needs kids.
dtnewman 7y ago
There's a limit to how many people can work remotely. Certainly, factory workers, restaurant employees, healthcare professionals, retail workers and bank tellers can't do this. And homeschooling isn't for everyone... But it's virtually impossible to do if both parents are working full time. Not to mention the effect this has on children. It's very difficult for children to be socially isolated. It's good for their mental health to be around other kids.

dmfdmf 7y ago

FWIW, I will throw in my two cents. This shutdown needs to end immediately. This is absolutely crushing the middle class and the economy. I'd bet that many of the small shops and restaurants I used to go to will never reopen. These low-margin businesses cannot cope with a week long closure, let alone four. We are already looking at waves of rent/debt defaults followed by massive layoffs and then a deep recession if not a depression. And if the government's response is unlimited money creation (for the banks or for individuals, it does not matter) then we are looking at a potential monetary or dollar crisis. This decision to shutdown the economy has been made on the misguided assumption that you can save the healthcare system in isolation from the rest of the system of production in which it resides. It is also assuming that saving lives supersedes any other consideration, especially money or economics. We are hearing this now from the media who already pre-attacking Trump for hinting he wants to end the shutdown -- that he is valuing billionaires or dollars over lives. This is shear non-sense and ignores the fact that people are not ghosts, we need to work in order to stay alive and live. I am reading on many forums about people who are about to lose their business that they spent 20 years building or their homes if they cannot get back to work soon. This is not just narrowly about lives lost to the virus but living for everyone. Of course we will do everything reasonable to help the afflicted but shutting down the economy should not be one of them. If you want to still hold to the assumption that only lives matter in this decision then think about this. Think of how many alcoholics will be created or relapse from spending days on end with nothing to do, bored in their home. How many of those will eventually die of alcoholism or kill people with their car? What about anorexics who recover but under quarantine and the anxiety of virus scaremongering relapse and ultimately starve to death? If the economy goes into a recession or depression (a fait accompli in my view) then how many people are going commit suicide which always goes up in bad times? How many people will die in just these three examples 100K, 200K, 1M people? These are not fantasy deaths, it will really happen but they will never be blamed on the shutdown. It is a real hidden cost, as real as those who die from CV19. There are real life-and-death altering consequences beyond just those unfortunate to get this virus.

selimthegrim 7y ago
It's not a question of leftist media. When the Black Death happened, feudalism ended. It's a simple as that. Do you think the virus gives a shit about how highly leveraged our system is?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]