4 ms·

I have a simple covid related question, hopefully someone can answer this here. We have been under lockdown for over 6 weeks here in chicago. But chicago had h

I have a simple covid related question, hopefully someone can answer this here. We have been under lockdown for over 6 weeks here in chicago. But chicago had highest number of deaths all of this week[1]. If we were under lockdown 6 weeks ago how did the people who died this week get infected. Does this mean ppl aren't following the guidelines properly ? I feel like I am missing something obvious here. 1. https://chicago.suntimes.com/coronavirus/2020/4/28/21240216/illinois-pritzker-coronavirus-cases-deaths-high-april-28 https://chicago.suntimes.com/coronavirus/2020/4/28/21240216/...

martin-adams 7y ago
I'd love to know the answer on this question too. The only theory I have is that it's being spread through key workers. So those caring for other like hospitals and care homes.
ceejayoz 7y ago
> Does this mean ppl aren't following the guidelines properly ? Yes, most likely. Folks still have to go out for groceries. Essential workers spread it to their families. The city had to close down various beaches and trails because people weren't staying far enough apart. etc. etc. etc.
- dominotw 7y ago
  So if make groceries pickup only and hefty fines/jail times for flouting guidelines. We would've had lockdown only for 2 weeks, in theory?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Or civil unrest. You'd have to do something about the grocery pickup folks, healthcare workers, people maintaining other critical infrastructure, etc. too. China can manage this (but it took more than two weeks). We probably can't with our current political system.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    No. Places with such severe restrictions have still had lockdowns much longer than 2 weeks.
  - soperj 7y ago
    That's what they did in parts of China. Still took some time to get the numbers back down.
  - saalweachter 7y ago
    Because we don't/can't do perfect lock-downs -- everyone literally stays home for two-to-six weeks and doesn't move from their home -- you can really think of lock-downs as doing two things. 1. It effectively reduces your population. Not everyone can stay home, because we still have stuff that has to get done, but say 80-90% of your population can stay home, because they're retired or they have a white collar job that allows them to work from home or because they're children and school is closed or because they've been fired because no one is buying what their job is selling. This means that instead of 85% of your population needing to catch the disease for it to burn itself out, you're only waiting for it to go through 85% of 10% of your population before it burns itself out. (Unfortunately, because that 10% includes the people who take care of the 0.5% of the population that is most vulnerable, this still kind of sucks for that 0.5%, and you're really waiting for it to go through like 10.5% of your population.) You'll still see increasing deaths during a lock-down until all of the grocery store workers and doctors and firefighters who are still pretty exposed out in the world catch it and some of them die. This also sucks and is kind of unfair, especially since some of the jobs which are pretty essential weren't particularly great before the pandemic. 2. It effectively reduces the R0 of the disease even among the essential personnel. The R0 of a disease (last estimated at 5.7 for the coronavirus) is not constant, but depends on the conditions it is spreading in. Even among the essential personnel still out there risking exposure, the R0 is lower with everything shut down than it would be without the lock down, because the lock down still reduces the number of people each essential worker comes into contact with on a given day. Dropping off packages at a hundred doors a day puts you in marginal contact with a lot of people, but it's still less than if you did that and then went out to a bar and a restaurant and a movie afterwards. Suppose the lock down is dropping the R0 among the active population from 5.7 to 2; that's still not great, but that means that instead of 85% of the 10% of the population still out in the world catching the disease, only 50% of the 10% will be expected to catch it. This is more awesome and less unfair, and also protects the vulnerable populations that come into contact with the essential workforce. So our imperfect lock downs don't stop the disease cold in its tracks, but it does probably reduce the number of people we expect to catch it from 85% of the population to -- if we're lucky -- 5% of the population.
hartator 7y ago
Or lockdowns are not significantly slowing down the virus to be statically visible. The thing is airborne, can spread to animals, and into the pipes. Lockdowns don’t affect those at all.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  SARS-CoV-2 is not airborne. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-t... > In an analysis of 75,465 COVID-19 cases in China, airborne transmission was not reported. Some animals can get it, but don't appear to be a major source of transmission to humans. The pipes thing is unconfirmed and that's in one special case of broken plumbing. https://cph.temple.edu/about/news-events/news/can-coronavirus-spread-through-defective-bathroom-sewage-pipes https://cph.temple.edu/about/news-events/news/can-coronaviru...
  - Mary-Jane 7y ago
    So what's the point of wearing masks then?
    - Mary-Jane 7y ago
      * masks! Not balls. lol
      - dang 7y ago
        I've edited your comment above to turn the balls back into masks. (Masked balls, anyone? https://www.google.com/search?q=%22masked+balls%22&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=%22masked+balls%22&tbm=isch)
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      SARS-CoV-2 is spread by droplets, which fall to the ground rapidly. Masks catch a lot of these, and slow down the rest. When coupled with six foot distancing, that has a major impact. Airborne transmission means the virus hangs out in the air for an extended period of time. SARS-CoV-2 does not do this. Stuff like measles does.
rossdavidh 7y ago
To put it gently, the science behind lockdown limiting the spread of a virus in a urban environment is...limited. But they felt they had to do something. It's kind of like making the medicine taste bad so you'll believe that it is doing something.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > It's kind of like making the medicine taste bad so you'll believe that it is doing something. No, that's so little kids don't think it's candy.
recursive 7y ago
It's possible to get infected even if you're following the guidelines. For example, essential workers may get infected by a carrier performing essential activities.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Doesn't lend credibility for suggesting lock-downs for future pandemics. Yay.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    I don't think that's fair. Lockdowns have successfully helped flatten the curve - changing spread from exponential to linear. That's worth something.
  - recursive 7y ago
    Why not? Looking both ways before crossing the street has pretty good credibility. But it's no guarantee.
bonzini 7y ago
Has the growth in daily deaths been exponential in the last few weeks, or linear, or sublinear?
rsynnott 7y ago
Chicago's lockdown may not be very effective. For instance, per https://www.apple.com/covid19/mobility/ https://www.apple.com/covid19/mobility/, there's a way smaller decrease in movement than, say, London or Paris.
- dominotw 7y ago
  > say, London or Paris. am I looking at this wrong? transit decrease is London - 85% Paris - 86% Chicago - 77%
  - rsynnott 7y ago
    Look at cars and walking.
natch 7y ago
The goal of the guidelines is not to prevent 100% of all cases. That goal would be impossible and unreasonable. Even with perfect compliance, the guidelines are not written to prevent all transmission. Again that would be impossible and impractical. You would have to refrain from opening your doors or windows. Would have to wash all food items, all packaging, and any other items from any store, or anything shipped to your home, with some disinfectant outside of your home before bringing them into your home. You would not touch anything outside your home without using gloves, ever, and your gloves would be disposed of outside of your home... etc., etc. And not only you, but every single person, including children, would have to do all these things, and more. And the few examples I wrote don't even account at all for in-home transmission. The virus is going to spread. That's not going to be prevented. There will be many individual cases. The guidelines are just for slowing it down in aggregate numbers.
kenjackson 7y ago
If you're on my Facebook feed (which you likely aren't) then you'll see a bunch of people basically saying, "I'm going to live my life and do what I want. Enjoy your quarantine." There's a non-trivial segment of the US population that are ignoring the quarantine and openly flaunting their behavior.

martin-adams 7y ago

I'd love to know the answer on this question too. The only theory I have is that it's being spread through key workers. So those caring for other like hospitals and care homes.

ceejayoz 7y ago

> Does this mean ppl aren't following the guidelines properly ? Yes, most likely. Folks still have to go out for groceries. Essential workers spread it to their families. The city had to close down various beaches and trails because people weren't staying far enough apart. etc. etc. etc.

dominotw 7y ago
So if make groceries pickup only and hefty fines/jail times for flouting guidelines. We would've had lockdown only for 2 weeks, in theory?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Or civil unrest. You'd have to do something about the grocery pickup folks, healthcare workers, people maintaining other critical infrastructure, etc. too. China can manage this (but it took more than two weeks). We probably can't with our current political system.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  No. Places with such severe restrictions have still had lockdowns much longer than 2 weeks.
- soperj 7y ago
  That's what they did in parts of China. Still took some time to get the numbers back down.
- saalweachter 7y ago
  Because we don't/can't do perfect lock-downs -- everyone literally stays home for two-to-six weeks and doesn't move from their home -- you can really think of lock-downs as doing two things. 1. It effectively reduces your population. Not everyone can stay home, because we still have stuff that has to get done, but say 80-90% of your population can stay home, because they're retired or they have a white collar job that allows them to work from home or because they're children and school is closed or because they've been fired because no one is buying what their job is selling. This means that instead of 85% of your population needing to catch the disease for it to burn itself out, you're only waiting for it to go through 85% of 10% of your population before it burns itself out. (Unfortunately, because that 10% includes the people who take care of the 0.5% of the population that is most vulnerable, this still kind of sucks for that 0.5%, and you're really waiting for it to go through like 10.5% of your population.) You'll still see increasing deaths during a lock-down until all of the grocery store workers and doctors and firefighters who are still pretty exposed out in the world catch it and some of them die. This also sucks and is kind of unfair, especially since some of the jobs which are pretty essential weren't particularly great before the pandemic. 2. It effectively reduces the R0 of the disease even among the essential personnel. The R0 of a disease (last estimated at 5.7 for the coronavirus) is not constant, but depends on the conditions it is spreading in. Even among the essential personnel still out there risking exposure, the R0 is lower with everything shut down than it would be without the lock down, because the lock down still reduces the number of people each essential worker comes into contact with on a given day. Dropping off packages at a hundred doors a day puts you in marginal contact with a lot of people, but it's still less than if you did that and then went out to a bar and a restaurant and a movie afterwards. Suppose the lock down is dropping the R0 among the active population from 5.7 to 2; that's still not great, but that means that instead of 85% of the 10% of the population still out in the world catching the disease, only 50% of the 10% will be expected to catch it. This is more awesome and less unfair, and also protects the vulnerable populations that come into contact with the essential workforce. So our imperfect lock downs don't stop the disease cold in its tracks, but it does probably reduce the number of people we expect to catch it from 85% of the population to -- if we're lucky -- 5% of the population.

hartator 7y ago

Or lockdowns are not significantly slowing down the virus to be statically visible. The thing is airborne, can spread to animals, and into the pipes. Lockdowns don’t affect those at all.

ceejayoz 7y ago
SARS-CoV-2 is not airborne. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-t... > In an analysis of 75,465 COVID-19 cases in China, airborne transmission was not reported. Some animals can get it, but don't appear to be a major source of transmission to humans. The pipes thing is unconfirmed and that's in one special case of broken plumbing. https://cph.temple.edu/about/news-events/news/can-coronavirus-spread-through-defective-bathroom-sewage-pipes https://cph.temple.edu/about/news-events/news/can-coronaviru...
- Mary-Jane 7y ago
  So what's the point of wearing masks then?
  - Mary-Jane 7y ago
    * masks! Not balls. lol
    - dang 7y ago
      I've edited your comment above to turn the balls back into masks. (Masked balls, anyone? https://www.google.com/search?q=%22masked+balls%22&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=%22masked+balls%22&tbm=isch)
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    SARS-CoV-2 is spread by droplets, which fall to the ground rapidly. Masks catch a lot of these, and slow down the rest. When coupled with six foot distancing, that has a major impact. Airborne transmission means the virus hangs out in the air for an extended period of time. SARS-CoV-2 does not do this. Stuff like measles does.

rossdavidh 7y ago

To put it gently, the science behind lockdown limiting the spread of a virus in a urban environment is...limited. But they felt they had to do something. It's kind of like making the medicine taste bad so you'll believe that it is doing something.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> It's kind of like making the medicine taste bad so you'll believe that it is doing something. No, that's so little kids don't think it's candy.

recursive 7y ago

It's possible to get infected even if you're following the guidelines. For example, essential workers may get infected by a carrier performing essential activities.

Fjolsvith 7y ago
Doesn't lend credibility for suggesting lock-downs for future pandemics. Yay.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  I don't think that's fair. Lockdowns have successfully helped flatten the curve - changing spread from exponential to linear. That's worth something.
- recursive 7y ago
  Why not? Looking both ways before crossing the street has pretty good credibility. But it's no guarantee.

bonzini 7y ago

Has the growth in daily deaths been exponential in the last few weeks, or linear, or sublinear?

rsynnott 7y ago

Chicago's lockdown may not be very effective. For instance, per https://www.apple.com/covid19/mobility/ https://www.apple.com/covid19/mobility/, there's a way smaller decrease in movement than, say, London or Paris.

dominotw 7y ago
> say, London or Paris. am I looking at this wrong? transit decrease is London - 85% Paris - 86% Chicago - 77%
- rsynnott 7y ago
  Look at cars and walking.

natch 7y ago

The goal of the guidelines is not to prevent 100% of all cases. That goal would be impossible and unreasonable. Even with perfect compliance, the guidelines are not written to prevent all transmission. Again that would be impossible and impractical. You would have to refrain from opening your doors or windows. Would have to wash all food items, all packaging, and any other items from any store, or anything shipped to your home, with some disinfectant outside of your home before bringing them into your home. You would not touch anything outside your home without using gloves, ever, and your gloves would be disposed of outside of your home... etc., etc. And not only you, but every single person, including children, would have to do all these things, and more. And the few examples I wrote don't even account at all for in-home transmission. The virus is going to spread. That's not going to be prevented. There will be many individual cases. The guidelines are just for slowing it down in aggregate numbers.

kenjackson 7y ago

If you're on my Facebook feed (which you likely aren't) then you'll see a bunch of people basically saying, "I'm going to live my life and do what I want. Enjoy your quarantine." There's a non-trivial segment of the US population that are ignoring the quarantine and openly flaunting their behavior.