After 100K Covid-19 cases, it’s clearer where Californians are getting infected(eastbaytimes.com)
eastbaytimes.com
After 100K Covid-19 cases, it’s clearer where Californians are getting infected
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2020/05/30/after-100000-coronavirus-cases-its-clearer-where-californians-are-getting-infected/
117 comments
It's the same in Belgium. At some point half of the deaths came from care homes. Here they even restrict workers to a certain floor or area in the care homes.
Why are there so many deaths in Belgium? It‘s terrible!
I can't answer this. But I heard that Belgium actually counts cases differently from other countries. We also count the deaths of people that have not been tested but who are strongly suspected to be Covid-19. Whereas other countries only count those who actually tested positive.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/coronavirus/news/belgium-sa...
https://www.euractiv.com/section/coronavirus/news/belgium-sa...
This is why I don't trust my country's (Indonesia) total death count. The official total death count is 1613. For a 4th most populous country with very high population density (in Java island, the most populous island in the country) with poor self-quarantine discipline, I find it hard to believe only 1613 people die of covid19 so far. It is likely due to low volume of testing and not counting death unless they're tested positive. Also, anecdotally there seem to be a widespread flu early this year where a lot of people in my circle (including myself) were getting more severe than usual flu-like syndrom. I suspect covid19 was arrived earlier but there is no way to prove it unless most of the population get tested, which is unlikely given how limited the testing here. These days the citizen can get tested but they must pay it themselves unless they are identified as highly suspected individuals by country's tracing orgs, and the test is too expensive for most people here, costing almost 1/4 minimum wage.
FYI: there was a powerful, contagious flu in SE Asia (outside China) as early as Dec. 15 that was probably corona.
If you're in Jakarta, what time did you get sick, and were there any other reported flu types in late 2019 or early 2020?
If you're in Jakarta, what time did you get sick, and were there any other reported flu types in late 2019 or early 2020?
Yeah, people in my circle were starting to get some heavy flu around early 2020, around late January 2020 if I remember correctly. I myself caught the flu around early March. Covid test kit was still rare at that time period so I just stay at home. Not sure if I that was covid or not, the only way to find out is probably by doing antibody test which I'm reluctant to do as I'll have to visit a hospital for that. Hospitals here are closing their non-essential services to try to limit the number of people going in and out of the hospital.
I've heard "actually counts cases differently from other countries" for at least 3 other European countries.
I don't think that phrase means very much.
I don't think that phrase means very much.
Yes it does, since Belgium was the first one to do it like this.
It's possible that other countries now also count this way, but I'm not aware of that/haven't heard it. So, I don't think that other countries count the same way.
Our way of counting has an average of 2 * more deaths in statistics. Since we count suspected cases as confirmed in the statistics.
It's a huge difference.
--
What are the other countries + sources then? I have only seen it mentioned ( and mentioned it myselve) for Belgium.
It's possible that other countries now also count this way, but I'm not aware of that/haven't heard it. So, I don't think that other countries count the same way.
Our way of counting has an average of 2 * more deaths in statistics. Since we count suspected cases as confirmed in the statistics.
It's a huge difference.
--
What are the other countries + sources then? I have only seen it mentioned ( and mentioned it myselve) for Belgium.
I've heard it often in both British and Italian media to explain why their figures are higher than neighbouring countries, using the same exact reason: we (did) count suspected cases as confirmed.
Not saying you're wrong, just pointing out the fact that all these figures have huge margins of errors and we'll know the true extend of it when we'll be way past it.
Not saying you're wrong, just pointing out the fact that all these figures have huge margins of errors and we'll know the true extend of it when we'll be way past it.
I checked some resources and none mentions Britain or Italy counting suspected cases.
I only did Belgium that does this. What is your source of information?
Not saying you are wrong, but according to me, Belgium is the only one that does it like this.
Even after looking it up, I can't find something that says what you are claiming
I only did Belgium that does this. What is your source of information?
Not saying you are wrong, but according to me, Belgium is the only one that does it like this.
Even after looking it up, I can't find something that says what you are claiming
[deleted]
Belgium is counting anyone who dies with covid-like symptoms as a covid death, even without a test.
So while everyone else is probably underreporting, Belgium is overreporting.
So while everyone else is probably underreporting, Belgium is overreporting.
Correct
Our minister of health is a doctor ( although she is ridiculed in public media because of her weight), it led to overreporting Covid cases.
A pure politician would probably want to underreport.
Our minister of health is a doctor ( although she is ridiculed in public media because of her weight), it led to overreporting Covid cases.
A pure politician would probably want to underreport.
Probably a bit of overreporting as others said, but also because it’s a very compact, dense, urban country with a large transient population moving between other heavily-affected areas (France and Netherlands).
Belgian counts every possible Covid related death, even if it's not confirmed to be Covid.
This frees resources to do something more useful and stress health care less, since we don't test deaths. We just count them as a possible Covid case and add it into the statistics.
Roughly, it seems that halve of the cases are Covid related.
So we have the worst case scenario in statistics every time, the only downside is that not everyone knows this and it seems way worse then it is for them. Even Trump doesn't seem to know this :)
Source: I'm from Belgium and informed ;)
This frees resources to do something more useful and stress health care less, since we don't test deaths. We just count them as a possible Covid case and add it into the statistics.
Roughly, it seems that halve of the cases are Covid related.
So we have the worst case scenario in statistics every time, the only downside is that not everyone knows this and it seems way worse then it is for them. Even Trump doesn't seem to know this :)
Source: I'm from Belgium and informed ;)
The idea that it takes significant viral load to initiate infection makes it quite interesting to try and form a mental model of how transmission takes place. For example, you have a globule of viral particles that float through the air and lodge in the respiratory system. According to the "viral load" theory, this is unlikely to initiate infect by itself. We need repeated doses, possibly over a period of time.
You could theorise that the inflation of risk is no more than that from the linear sum of the doses, ie: any given "dose" has the same probability of inducing infection. However the "viral load" idea suggests that multiple exposure is worse than just the sum of independent random events. It suggests there's some sort of interaction whereby multiple doses within a short period of time are especially potent, as if the viral products from independently replicating infections in the respiratory system are able in some way to reinforce each other and make it more likely than two independent chances that an overall infection will take hold.
Curious if there is any work in this regard that would elucidate the underpinning process of infection.
You could theorise that the inflation of risk is no more than that from the linear sum of the doses, ie: any given "dose" has the same probability of inducing infection. However the "viral load" idea suggests that multiple exposure is worse than just the sum of independent random events. It suggests there's some sort of interaction whereby multiple doses within a short period of time are especially potent, as if the viral products from independently replicating infections in the respiratory system are able in some way to reinforce each other and make it more likely than two independent chances that an overall infection will take hold.
Curious if there is any work in this regard that would elucidate the underpinning process of infection.
Something I learned a month or two ago as others puzzled over this: The human body has two immune systems.
The adaptive immune system is the one where you create antibodies to fight against specific pathogens. It takes more energy for your body to do, so it doesn't activate immediately.
The innate immune system works generically against a large variety of body invaders. If it succeeds in fighting off a virus, you don't develop antibodies for it.
The viral load theory is, by my understanding:
* Too small a load, and the innate immune system fights off the virus quickly. You don't get sick.
* Cross the threshold where the innate immune system can't handle it - the virus replicates too quickly - and you do get sick, and have to generate antibodies to fight it off effectively.
* Past that threshold, the larger the load worse your sickness is going to be and/or the longer your recovery is going to be (all other things equal), because the body still has to ramp up while the virus can start replicating immediately.
The adaptive immune system is the one where you create antibodies to fight against specific pathogens. It takes more energy for your body to do, so it doesn't activate immediately.
The innate immune system works generically against a large variety of body invaders. If it succeeds in fighting off a virus, you don't develop antibodies for it.
The viral load theory is, by my understanding:
* Too small a load, and the innate immune system fights off the virus quickly. You don't get sick.
* Cross the threshold where the innate immune system can't handle it - the virus replicates too quickly - and you do get sick, and have to generate antibodies to fight it off effectively.
* Past that threshold, the larger the load worse your sickness is going to be and/or the longer your recovery is going to be (all other things equal), because the body still has to ramp up while the virus can start replicating immediately.
Interesting. Does this mean that in the "too small a load" case that you do not develop any immunity to future infection? Do you have any links with more information about this?
My description above is a bit of a simplification since I'm still picking this knowledge up myself - I have no specific links, it's pretty much what you'd find on Wikipedia or others' comments on here.
In particular, one example of something I think I phrased badly above is antibody generation not happening immediately. I remember people saying that getting tested for antibodies right after they recover few to none are found, but a week or two later they start reliably testing positive. This tells me that yes antibodies do start getting created pretty quickly, but takes a while to reach critical mass and become effective (but it doesn't matter because the innate immune system worked effectively enough).
In particular, one example of something I think I phrased badly above is antibody generation not happening immediately. I remember people saying that getting tested for antibodies right after they recover few to none are found, but a week or two later they start reliably testing positive. This tells me that yes antibodies do start getting created pretty quickly, but takes a while to reach critical mass and become effective (but it doesn't matter because the innate immune system worked effectively enough).
My model is:
- A virion has to infect a cell before it becomes inactivated. It could encounter something in the intercellular space or extracellular matrix which renders it inactive, or it may be exposed to something in the environment for long enough to become inactive, like a random O3 molecule or hydroxy radical perhaps.
- The virion can successfully enter a cell but something can happen to interfere with replication, like a mutation event or some localized cell state, like the cell is preparing for mitosis, apoptosis, etc.
- The virion successfully enters a cell but the cell is destroyed by the immune system before significant quantities of virus are produced.
I'm just guessing, because I don't have much more than a basic understanding of microbiology. I think it is definitely possible to become infected via a single virion though.
- A virion has to infect a cell before it becomes inactivated. It could encounter something in the intercellular space or extracellular matrix which renders it inactive, or it may be exposed to something in the environment for long enough to become inactive, like a random O3 molecule or hydroxy radical perhaps.
- The virion can successfully enter a cell but something can happen to interfere with replication, like a mutation event or some localized cell state, like the cell is preparing for mitosis, apoptosis, etc.
- The virion successfully enters a cell but the cell is destroyed by the immune system before significant quantities of virus are produced.
I'm just guessing, because I don't have much more than a basic understanding of microbiology. I think it is definitely possible to become infected via a single virion though.
Thats been my assumption - its a race between the virus finding the right spot that allows access to the cell and something else destroying it. Either the corona virus needs a very specific spot to allow access, or there's a number of steps that have to occur before a successful infection. Either case requires a lot of virus particle to infect for the probabilities to be in its favour.
you were doing pretty well until that last sentence. you enumerated some of the many difficulties a virion has of infecting you, and then came to a puzzling conclusion that doesn't follow at all from the previous statements.
the chance of one virion in the environment infecting you is essentially zero, for the reasons you state as well as many others. you need to accumulate billions of chances for 'essentially zero' to reach a 'miniscule chance', and many orders of magnitude more to reach 'maybe', 'probably', and 'definitely'.
infection is unlikely if you don't love sitting directly in the respiratory exhaust of strangers all day.
the chance of one virion in the environment infecting you is essentially zero, for the reasons you state as well as many others. you need to accumulate billions of chances for 'essentially zero' to reach a 'miniscule chance', and many orders of magnitude more to reach 'maybe', 'probably', and 'definitely'.
infection is unlikely if you don't love sitting directly in the respiratory exhaust of strangers all day.
My point is that it is theoretically possible but practically impossible. Rare events sometimes happen. With no background in biology, I can't say what the actual probability is. Is the chance of a single virion infecting a cell 1 in a sextillion, or only 1 in a million? In either case, it is still possible, as far as I understand the definition of the word 'possible'.
> According to the "viral load" theory, this is unlikely to initiate infect by itself. We need repeated doses, possibly over a period of time.
I don't think that follows at all. The viral load theory says infection happens when a large quantity of the virus enters your body (implicitly over a short period of time), whether from several sources or from a single concentrated/powerful source. That suggests that e.g. close contact with one infected person for several hours is probably more dangerous than casual contact with several infected people.
I don't think that follows at all. The viral load theory says infection happens when a large quantity of the virus enters your body (implicitly over a short period of time), whether from several sources or from a single concentrated/powerful source. That suggests that e.g. close contact with one infected person for several hours is probably more dangerous than casual contact with several infected people.
I guess what makes me feel that doesn't fit perfectly is the "continuous contact for 15 minutes" rule. If straight up load was the main driver then I'd have thought time would be a less important factor. But I can see if you simply assume load is proportionate to time in contact then you can model it as purely a function of total viral load.
I don't quite understand your logic, but the more common view is rather the opposite: repeated small exposures are the best way to get exposed, if you cannot avoid it completely.
The mechanism is essentially variolation: giving your immune system some exposure so the adaptive immune system can start the process of building immunity, but so little that the innate immune system still has a good chance of winning this first round.
Then, of course, there's basic mathematics: viruses multiply exponentially. Assuming a single virus particle can theoretically infect you and, at the other side of the spectrum, that getting full-on sneezed on can deliver a billion virus particles, the time difference is enormous: that one virus particle would take 30 viral life cycles to grow to a billion, even if unchecked. At a few hours per generation, this could provide your immune system with a few days to a week of head start.
The mechanism is essentially variolation: giving your immune system some exposure so the adaptive immune system can start the process of building immunity, but so little that the innate immune system still has a good chance of winning this first round.
Then, of course, there's basic mathematics: viruses multiply exponentially. Assuming a single virus particle can theoretically infect you and, at the other side of the spectrum, that getting full-on sneezed on can deliver a billion virus particles, the time difference is enormous: that one virus particle would take 30 viral life cycles to grow to a billion, even if unchecked. At a few hours per generation, this could provide your immune system with a few days to a week of head start.
The confusion between you an OP is what you mean by short. He means over minutes, I assume you mean over days.
I've been trying to wrap my head around the 'viral load' theory too. This goes against the mainstream notion of what getting a virus means. I've never heard before of people getting a worse case of flu because somebody else sneezed harder on them!
It makes sense that with an initial small load the immune system might get a chance to wipe out the infection immediately.
But I assumed that once infection does happen and cells start mass-producing the virus then it gets pumped into the whole body really fast. Turns out this might not be true and that the immune system ramps up response at the same pace regardless of the infection severity, which seems entirely unexpected?!
It makes sense that with an initial small load the immune system might get a chance to wipe out the infection immediately.
But I assumed that once infection does happen and cells start mass-producing the virus then it gets pumped into the whole body really fast. Turns out this might not be true and that the immune system ramps up response at the same pace regardless of the infection severity, which seems entirely unexpected?!
In a cell culture dish, if you hit a bunch of cells with a load of about 1 virus per cell, you get a really low number of infected cells. If you hit a bunch of cells with 10 virus per cell, you get really high infection rates. It is possible a similar thing happens in the body. And yes, the immune system can only ramp up so fast. There is a lot that has to happen between original recognition of the invader to neutralizing antibody production at scale. It's a weeks long process.
Thing to consider the innate immune systems is always at work. Likely if it doesn't get overwhelmed or somehow evaded there is a chance it'll squash an infection by itself.
This thread makes the most sense to me.
If you watch the videos of the particles people emit when sneezing or talking loudly, you'd be astonished (I was). Apparently these particles can hang in the air for very long periods of time and circulate throughout an enclosed space.
It seems to me that the more of these particles you inhale, the more spots in your lungs they could land.
If this thread is correct, the infection sites would be somewhat localized, especially to start. A person could potentially have one or two internal infection sites and their immune system respond in plenty time for them to avoid noticing the effects of the virus infections, whereas the same person could get many, many infection sites throughout their lungs, and then eventually be completely unable to breathe as each location slowly spreads to cover a large surface area of the lung.
The implications are that anything you can do to reduce your chances of inhaling these particles increases your chances of not getting a noticeable infection.
This means avoiding enclosed spaces with others and wearing masks. I wonder if masks will become the new style.
If you watch the videos of the particles people emit when sneezing or talking loudly, you'd be astonished (I was). Apparently these particles can hang in the air for very long periods of time and circulate throughout an enclosed space.
It seems to me that the more of these particles you inhale, the more spots in your lungs they could land.
If this thread is correct, the infection sites would be somewhat localized, especially to start. A person could potentially have one or two internal infection sites and their immune system respond in plenty time for them to avoid noticing the effects of the virus infections, whereas the same person could get many, many infection sites throughout their lungs, and then eventually be completely unable to breathe as each location slowly spreads to cover a large surface area of the lung.
The implications are that anything you can do to reduce your chances of inhaling these particles increases your chances of not getting a noticeable infection.
This means avoiding enclosed spaces with others and wearing masks. I wonder if masks will become the new style.
One bit I finally gleaned about masks. A suspicion is droplets contain more virus than aerosols. Droplets will settle out of the air quickly. But kicker, droplets can also dehydrate and shrink to aerosol size and persist. But they still contain the same dose of virus. Eeek!
That part of why masks help prevent people from spreading. Because even shitty masks do a good job of stopping droplets. Before they dehydrate and become aerosols.
Beyond theory there is a paper the showed the results of wearing masks by people with influenza, rhinovirus and common coronavirus. Result. Slight benefit for influenza. Don't work for rhinovirus. Works very well for coronavirus.
I think the take away there is. Wearing masks prevents people from producing highly infections aerosols. And you should avoid spending long amounts of time in enclosed spaces with other people.
That part of why masks help prevent people from spreading. Because even shitty masks do a good job of stopping droplets. Before they dehydrate and become aerosols.
Beyond theory there is a paper the showed the results of wearing masks by people with influenza, rhinovirus and common coronavirus. Result. Slight benefit for influenza. Don't work for rhinovirus. Works very well for coronavirus.
I think the take away there is. Wearing masks prevents people from producing highly infections aerosols. And you should avoid spending long amounts of time in enclosed spaces with other people.
> I wonder if masks will become the new style.
Dunno how long it may persist, but it's definitely a thing people have on their mind:
https://www.latimes.com/lifestyle/story/2020-05-29/17-option...
Dunno how long it may persist, but it's definitely a thing people have on their mind:
https://www.latimes.com/lifestyle/story/2020-05-29/17-option...
Thew whole idea is fascinating and there are also a limited number of real world studies (aka trying to infect people with live virus) to chose from. Influenza seems to have a threshold. If the dose is too low people don't get sick. At the threshold you see some people get sick and some people develop antibodies without symptoms.
Maybe; but that theory is a little suspect since presumably this entire pandemic started from a single viron and viruses grow so quickly that a single infected cell can produce ~1,000 new virus particles (dunno how may a coronavirus produces, that figure is something I Googled for HIV).
Starting dose does matter but surely people risk infection from even a tiny dose.
Starting dose does matter but surely people risk infection from even a tiny dose.
I thought the theory was that the first infected human acquired it from an infected animal? So it's quite possible that infecting humans requires significant exposure.
"presumably this entire pandemic started from a single viron"
I have no idea where you get this from. It is likely that someone got bit or scratched or sneezed on by a bat or cat of some type at the Wuhan "wet" market. Or they caught it somewhere else from a bat or cat but went to the "wet" market and spread it in the asymptomatic period.
I have no idea where you get this from. It is likely that someone got bit or scratched or sneezed on by a bat or cat of some type at the Wuhan "wet" market. Or they caught it somewhere else from a bat or cat but went to the "wet" market and spread it in the asymptomatic period.
Perhaps all you need is somebody with a compromised immune system.
CA, NY and NJ were the states that forced their nursing homes to take C19 patients.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200430140410/https://www.nytim...
CA got off easy, relatively speaking. Probably fewer nursing homes. It's amazing how idiotic government officials can be.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200430140410/https://www.nytim...
CA got off easy, relatively speaking. Probably fewer nursing homes. It's amazing how idiotic government officials can be.
NY's governor was going on his brother's TV show making light of the situation and sharing corny jokes as the elderly were dying in nursing homes.
And when people were desperate for relief it was the governor that decided to ban off-label use of drugs for COVID meanwhile his brother sprang back into action fairly quick after becoming infected and taking: https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/chris-cuomo-took-less-safe-ver...
And when people were desperate for relief it was the governor that decided to ban off-label use of drugs for COVID meanwhile his brother sprang back into action fairly quick after becoming infected and taking: https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/chris-cuomo-took-less-safe-ver...
And, as we have since learnt, HCQ doesn't help and is actively harmful.
These two brothers are also not the same person, so it's entirely possible for one of them to ban something while the other still wants to use it.
These two brothers are also not the same person, so it's entirely possible for one of them to ban something while the other still wants to use it.
kangaroozach(3)
We have learned no such thing. The study WHO is referring to is fake: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/29/covid-19-surgi...
You're being gaslit.
You're being gaslit.
> “Whoever made this decision, whoever did this, I consider this a sentence of death for all the older patients, whoever is in a nursing home,” he said.
Wonder what the justification was. Hindsight 20/20 as they say, but wasn’t it known the age and various conditions that older patients might have are risk factors early on?
Wonder what the justification was. Hindsight 20/20 as they say, but wasn’t it known the age and various conditions that older patients might have are risk factors early on?
> Hindsight 20/20 as they say
Sorry, but that excuse won't fly for several reasons:
1) We had sars-1 and mers earlier, both corona viruses
2) China was slow in providing info initially, but eventually they did. There's a number of papers to read online. (Same as in sars-1, where world notification was delayed from Nov. 2002 to about Mar. 2003.)
3) The CDC and other agencies are supposed to be on top of pandemics. The White House has a pandemic playbook. These are paid professionals who are supposed to have foresight, not blame hindsight.
(FYI: one of the US disease pros involved said that false alerts essentially neutered pandemic response since 2010 in this country. I empathize with that. All I can suggest is to point out that sars-1 killed thousands, and mers and sars-2 are also coronas.)
Sorry, but that excuse won't fly for several reasons:
1) We had sars-1 and mers earlier, both corona viruses
2) China was slow in providing info initially, but eventually they did. There's a number of papers to read online. (Same as in sars-1, where world notification was delayed from Nov. 2002 to about Mar. 2003.)
3) The CDC and other agencies are supposed to be on top of pandemics. The White House has a pandemic playbook. These are paid professionals who are supposed to have foresight, not blame hindsight.
(FYI: one of the US disease pros involved said that false alerts essentially neutered pandemic response since 2010 in this country. I empathize with that. All I can suggest is to point out that sars-1 killed thousands, and mers and sars-2 are also coronas.)
"The White House has a pandemic playbook."
The white house HAD a pandemic playbook. They didn't use it.
The white house HAD a pandemic playbook. They didn't use it.
It's in the article - they were worried about hospitals having insufficient capacity to deal with covid19 patients.
An excellent case study on why overly pessimistic models not only lead to high economic cost, but also a cost in lives.
An excellent case study on why overly pessimistic models not only lead to high economic cost, but also a cost in lives.
Your comment is an excellent example of hindsight bias.
NYC/NJ modeling is forgivable.
California's is not. (https://www.mercurynews.com/coronavirus-how-can-the-states-m...)
California's is not. (https://www.mercurynews.com/coronavirus-how-can-the-states-m...)
You're bagging on California for being proactive and not ending up like and NYC/NJ.
Gibbon1 is correct, the CA numbers have been overly pessimistic for months, evident in that the Santa Clara dashboard has been flat for months and at no point in crisis.
At some point the responsible thing to do is to use a more accurate model, but that's not what's happening.
Newsom plans to run for President, so it's hard to believe anything he says, doubly so with the incorrect stats available.
At some point the responsible thing to do is to use a more accurate model, but that's not what's happening.
Newsom plans to run for President, so it's hard to believe anything he says, doubly so with the incorrect stats available.
Newsome will get absolutely dragged about that high-speed rail system from nowhere to nowhere and what really happened to all of that money.
Nobody cares about the train directly. Public transit in the US is just to free up more roads for drivers.
The only good thing I can say about the proposed rail system so far is that both San Jose and SF have "terminals" for it, so it could be built more quickly in the future.
When I was looking at the US fatal accident rate recently (about 37,000/year), what struck me was that it was basically 1 fatality per accident (ie. Americans really do drive sole occupant trips.)
The only good thing I can say about the proposed rail system so far is that both San Jose and SF have "terminals" for it, so it could be built more quickly in the future.
When I was looking at the US fatal accident rate recently (about 37,000/year), what struck me was that it was basically 1 fatality per accident (ie. Americans really do drive sole occupant trips.)
We’re talking about Mid March. Mortality by age was well known by then.
duckMuppet(4)
How are people able to read this? I get a screen that demands I disable my ad blocker.
The exact same article is available without demands here (at least when I accessed it through Google): https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/30/after-100000-coronavi...
The exact same article is available without demands here (at least when I accessed it through Google): https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/30/after-100000-coronavi...
> Why meat plants? The CDC said it’s hard for those workers to stay separated and wear masks on the job, and there are “sociocultural and economic challenges” with a diverse, low-wage workforce, including language barriers and employees living in crowded settings and sharing rides to work.
"An important factor could also be the ambient temperature at the workplace. Cold temperatures prevailed in the rooms, some of which were the size of a hall. "I have been asking myself more and more whether these high transmission activities in slaughterhouses do not indicate something that we will otherwise experience over a large area in winter, namely this temperature effect. In other words: When it gets colder, the coronavirus will probably be better transmitted."
Prof. Drosten
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
https://www.rnd.de/gesundheit/drosten-zu-corona-in-schlachtb...
"An important factor could also be the ambient temperature at the workplace. Cold temperatures prevailed in the rooms, some of which were the size of a hall. "I have been asking myself more and more whether these high transmission activities in slaughterhouses do not indicate something that we will otherwise experience over a large area in winter, namely this temperature effect. In other words: When it gets colder, the coronavirus will probably be better transmitted."
Prof. Drosten
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
https://www.rnd.de/gesundheit/drosten-zu-corona-in-schlachtb...
I was downvoted and criticized in a hilariously condescending manner for suggesting that warmer temperatures are slowing down the spread a couple for weeks ago.
But it seems that the infinite lockdown proponents are getting a littler quieter now.
But it seems that the infinite lockdown proponents are getting a littler quieter now.
My theory is that it may not be the heat exactly, but the way in which heat rises that may cause the viral particles to disperse away from people.
I've been waiting for some analysis like this. There have been pushes for hazard pay for a lot of critical lobs, but there hasn't been much information show what's actually risky.
A big takeaway from this is that the main part of the food supply that's at-risk is meat production, so while people might have to eat rice and beans, the food supply should otherwise hold up.
A big takeaway from this is that the main part of the food supply that's at-risk is meat production, so while people might have to eat rice and beans, the food supply should otherwise hold up.
There is a perfect storm brewing in the food industry. Investments in the spring when crops are planted were down. There is a solar minimum occurring which will effect the yield of food grown. There is a locust plague going on in some parts of the world. A large number of countries, because of the pandemic have halted exports of food. Another aspect of the pandemic is that food is exported to be processed, then re-imported to be consumed, and this has slowed or stopped. There are some models that suggest large populations on the planet to be starving by the end of the year.
Do you have further information on these models?
... and meat production is only at risk if you have working conditions of the sort Upton Sinclair wrote about in "The Jungle" (1906). Meatpacking here is a skilled trade that is done without conveyor belts, so our meat packers have had no problem keeping 2m distance.
(Rice and beans are yummy, but the pastafarians have better comics: https://xkcd.com/2287/ )
Edit: (please bear with me for replies, I hit the rate limit so it may be a while)
(Rice and beans are yummy, but the pastafarians have better comics: https://xkcd.com/2287/ )
Edit: (please bear with me for replies, I hit the rate limit so it may be a while)
Since meatpacking plants are trouble spot in the US that would imply that meatpacking plants in the US have the same conditions as The Jungle but that seems somewhat counterintuitive as The Jungle is often pointed to as having changed the US meatpacking industry for the better.
The Jungle was about a rendering plant no? It's been a while. In the Jungle, people died regularly. In meatpacking these days (pre-covid) it's a dirty/gross job with low pay and physically hard work but (pre-covid) there weren't a lot of deaths from meatpacking. OSHA kind of frowns on that sort of thing, at least during Democratic administrations.
Yes, it's back. US Immigration enforcement has been soft on the meat industry. Part of this was the political backlash after there was an ICE raid on a meat plant in Iowa in 2008, and a prominent Jew went to prison.[1] (Trump recently pardoned him.) ICE enforcement against employers has never been strong, and was even weaker after that. There hasn't been a big raid like that since.
In countries without cheap labor, much meat processing is automated. The technology is available. Lamb: [2] Beef: [3] Chicken [4]. "Against Brazil, USA and Asia, we're a high cost manufacturer" - Australian plant manager putting in automation. Right now, lamb deboning can be totally automated, chicken deboning almost is, and beef is coming along. (This reflects the technology coming from Australia, where the sheep industry is huge.)
Possible area for a startup.
(Videos not safe for vegetarians.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postville_raid
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za2dsB0qrMg
[3] https://youtu.be/jqs2PWmbuus
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isdKEo_qMqY
In countries without cheap labor, much meat processing is automated. The technology is available. Lamb: [2] Beef: [3] Chicken [4]. "Against Brazil, USA and Asia, we're a high cost manufacturer" - Australian plant manager putting in automation. Right now, lamb deboning can be totally automated, chicken deboning almost is, and beef is coming along. (This reflects the technology coming from Australia, where the sheep industry is huge.)
Possible area for a startup.
(Videos not safe for vegetarians.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postville_raid
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za2dsB0qrMg
[3] https://youtu.be/jqs2PWmbuus
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isdKEo_qMqY
It's good to hear that at least the beef carcasses can be processed in a wide range. One problem meat finishers had in the pandemic US was that even despite the lack of automation, packers would only take animals in a narrow weight range, so simply waiting for packing plants to come back up wasn't an option.
(speaking of options, I understand there are some goods so perishable that even the notoriously imperfect commodities exchanges won't touch them: when both sellers and buyers can store goods, it's much more difficult to manipulate markets)
(speaking of options, I understand there are some goods so perishable that even the notoriously imperfect commodities exchanges won't touch them: when both sellers and buyers can store goods, it's much more difficult to manipulate markets)
(Trump recently pardoned him)
Right, although some press reports say "pardon", it was just a commutation to time served.[1] There's not that much difference in practice.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/politics/kushner-rubashkin-tr...
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/politics/kushner-rubashkin-tr...
[deleted]
The Jungle was about the safety of the products (to consume) far more than about the safety of the workers.
Chicago meatpacking was safer work than, say, railroad grades or West Virginia coal mines.
Chicago meatpacking was safer work than, say, railroad grades or West Virginia coal mines.
I guess the progression in various jurisdiction's* meat laws tends to go:
1. protect consumers
2. protect workers
3. protect animals
* food is well labelled here. My pistachios tend to alternately come from California and from Iran; my potato chips are tracked back to the farm from where the potatoes came; and restaurants generally have the sources of their meats printed on the menu (if not, no one is surprised to be asked)
* food is well labelled here. My pistachios tend to alternately come from California and from Iran; my potato chips are tracked back to the farm from where the potatoes came; and restaurants generally have the sources of their meats printed on the menu (if not, no one is surprised to be asked)
The exceptions in food labeling confound me. I keep assuming that some behaviors have to be illegal, but Federal rulemaking changes have been spottily reported for over 20 years.
One example is nuts. There are off brands (I see mainly among Grocery Outlet and store brands) which will say things like "may contain nuts from (list of 8 countries)". How can that be legal? When there is any recall, how could any of these not need recalling? etc.
Plus, obvious errors go unresolved. For example, the Hoodys peanuts in shell at Costco. The nutritional information assumes ~10% shell content by weight, but the number of servings times serving size = 110+% of the item weight. Math just ain't that hard. I actually reported this to Costco over a year ago; it remains unchanged.
One example is nuts. There are off brands (I see mainly among Grocery Outlet and store brands) which will say things like "may contain nuts from (list of 8 countries)". How can that be legal? When there is any recall, how could any of these not need recalling? etc.
Plus, obvious errors go unresolved. For example, the Hoodys peanuts in shell at Costco. The nutritional information assumes ~10% shell content by weight, but the number of servings times serving size = 110+% of the item weight. Math just ain't that hard. I actually reported this to Costco over a year ago; it remains unchanged.
The Jungle was also a novel, where the author did not need to cite any facts.
It’s back. As they say, if you got the money, honey, we got your disease. In The Jungle, welcome to The Jungle. Watch it bring you to your shun n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n knees, knees!
Kind of a weird theme song for the book now that I think about it.
Kind of a weird theme song for the book now that I think about it.
Where is "here" for you?
Switzerland. This is a safety publication of ours (not safe for vegetarians) https://www.ekas.ch/download.php?id=7869
Even if you don't read german, I think the pictures show why we haven't had the same problems (compare to an image search of conveyer-belt-driven meatpacking in, say, germany) with social distancing and meat.
It probably helps that even though we are a politically third world country, we are an economically first world country: people are expensive and machines are cheap.
For nerds: the slogan on the front page, «Unfall – kein Zufall!», means "Accidents are not happenstance", and the graph on p.8 shows the close relationship between improvement on safety assessments and accident rates.
p.19 is also an interesting workplace safety observation, but that's a different topic.
It probably helps that even though we are a politically third world country, we are an economically first world country: people are expensive and machines are cheap.
For nerds: the slogan on the front page, «Unfall – kein Zufall!», means "Accidents are not happenstance", and the graph on p.8 shows the close relationship between improvement on safety assessments and accident rates.
p.19 is also an interesting workplace safety observation, but that's a different topic.
TLDR: The virus tends to get spread in confines spaces (presumably, though not confirmed, airborne with a low infectivity per virion). The more people in a confined space (meatpacking plant, prison, care facility, etc), the larger the outbreak.
I thought the tl;dr was we don't know for sure and we need to collect more data.
"But the question remains — beyond these known clusters, how did the tens of thousands of Californians who aren’t accounted for in publicized major outbreaks become infected?"
...
"“We don’t know if people just going to parks or beaches, just sort of casual social gathering, contribute a whole lot to infections,” Riley said. Public health officials “really need to identify the high-transmission settings and then target those and not have these unfocused measures on social distancing.”"
"But the question remains — beyond these known clusters, how did the tens of thousands of Californians who aren’t accounted for in publicized major outbreaks become infected?"
...
"“We don’t know if people just going to parks or beaches, just sort of casual social gathering, contribute a whole lot to infections,” Riley said. Public health officials “really need to identify the high-transmission settings and then target those and not have these unfocused measures on social distancing.”"
Good point
The tl;dr is "groups in indoor spaces, including family gatherings, are known bad". Other things seem to be less important, but we haven't sorted them out yet and we still have a large chunk of cases whose transmission can't be accounted for.
The real problem is that this means that schools and colleges are now proven known bad.
What are we supposed to do come September?
The real problem is that this means that schools and colleges are now proven known bad.
What are we supposed to do come September?
One possibility is better ventilation. Open windows, install HEPA filters on the HVAC system, run the HVAC circulation fans continuously rather than intermittently, rejigger the HVAC system to pull air from outside rather than recirculate internal air.
The virus is transmitted from person to person in close proximity, not through long distance airborne dispersion. If you have someone coughing 1 meter away the filtering and ventilation do not matter, except that a strong ventilation can carry the particles on a longer distance, increasing the risk of transmission.
Apparently 42% of the covid deaths in the US have been in nursing homes, which house .62% of the population. In some states, the share is as high as 70% of the deaths.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/05/26/nursin...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/05/26/nursin...
Based on that, it doesn't really make sense to shutdown all of society. Measures focused purely on the vulnerable would achieve the same result for significantly less cost.
Does it? If we'd had 330k deaths, and 70% were coming from nursing homes, focusing on care homes would still be more efficient, but we'd be left with 100k that weren't.
I realize there is some (necessarily vague) policy threshold past which the resultant damage to the economy is not "worth it", but the fact that there is a particularly vulnerable segment doesn't obviate the need for less efficient mitigation measures.
I realize there is some (necessarily vague) policy threshold past which the resultant damage to the economy is not "worth it", but the fact that there is a particularly vulnerable segment doesn't obviate the need for less efficient mitigation measures.
LA times has an excellent dashboard on coronavirus. The most stark thing that I saw besides the overwhelming number of cases in health care facilities, jails and Meat plants was the outsized infection rate of Latinos vs other races. The rate was almost double the demographics if I remember correctly which was shocking
My understanding is that there are a large number of Latinos working in meat packing ad healthcare facilities, and also in jail
Is there a genetic factor to it or just different social norms among Latinos (say, extended families)?
[deleted]
In Michigan they've been very stingy with data but this tracks well in our state as well. However densely populated poor neighborhoods have created a lot of cases as well, especially in Detroit.
In Detroit over a thousand police attended a pancake breakfast in mid-March including the top brass. Nearly all the cases in the police department stem from this single event. The police chief was infected and the chief of homicide died.
In Detroit over a thousand police attended a pancake breakfast in mid-March including the top brass. Nearly all the cases in the police department stem from this single event. The police chief was infected and the chief of homicide died.
I heard about a study mentioned on the german NDR coronavirus podcast. You‘re 19 times as likely to get infected indoors.
Go outside!
If you are in a closed room with others, open the windows! If you can‘t due to bad weather, cancel the gathering/school lesson/restaurant visit/whatever if possible.
Is this particular article the only possible vehicle for obtaining the information? It has an ad-blocker screen and if you comply you get an auto-playing video. And after apparently 24 hours no alternatives seem to have been posted.
These all share in common the traits of having lots of people in close contact for extended periods -- and in many cases, have a steady influx of new people coming in.
The most important health measure taken in British Columbia -- aside from providing workers with masks, of course -- has been to restrict long term care workers to working in a single facility. In other places, workers routinely work multiple part-time jobs and have spread the virus between facilities; fortunately that was stopped very early in BC, and our death toll so far is only around 150 (out of a population of over 5 million).