Covid-19 in Iceland: Violated Isolation and Infected over 100(icelandreview.com)
icelandreview.com
Covid-19 in Iceland: Violated Isolation and Infected over 100
https://www.icelandreview.com/society/covid-19-in-iceland-violated-isolation-and-infected-over-100/
95 comments
Yeah, I think a lot of the time people expect the rules to be flexible and applied in a reasonable manner.
In the story you linked, any reasonable person would have let the Germans dock.
They had been isolated at sea for more than 14 days, and applied for a docking permit through the appropriate channel, and stated they needed to repair their boat.
The NZ government has a process which they used, but rejected them based on a procedural technicality.
In the story you linked, any reasonable person would have let the Germans dock.
They had been isolated at sea for more than 14 days, and applied for a docking permit through the appropriate channel, and stated they needed to repair their boat.
The NZ government has a process which they used, but rejected them based on a procedural technicality.
> In the story you linked, any reasonable person would have let the Germans dock.
Shit NO. Extracts from article below:
“Their application was declined because the Director-General of Health was not reasonably satisfied that the ship had a compelling need to arrive in New Zealand that reached the high threshold required”
“People in vessels travelling to New Zealand to avoid the cyclone season in the Pacific may have other genuine humanitarian reasons or other compelling needs for coming, which would need to be demonstrated in order for these vessels to qualify for an exemption – but financial loss alone is unlikely to meet the criteria.”
“‘As much as our country is known for its hospitality, New Zealand cannot become a maritime Covid-19 safe haven for everyone in unfortunate circumstances’.”
“Immigration NZ’s national manager of border and visa operations Peter Elms said their decision to knowingly travel here without approval “0’demonstrates a blatant disregard for New Zealand’s border restrictions’.”
NZ has nearly eradicated Covid again, so we are a desirable destination, and we need to ensure we are strict otherwise every Tomaz, Diyk, und Harri will be sailing here.
Shit NO. Extracts from article below:
“Their application was declined because the Director-General of Health was not reasonably satisfied that the ship had a compelling need to arrive in New Zealand that reached the high threshold required”
“People in vessels travelling to New Zealand to avoid the cyclone season in the Pacific may have other genuine humanitarian reasons or other compelling needs for coming, which would need to be demonstrated in order for these vessels to qualify for an exemption – but financial loss alone is unlikely to meet the criteria.”
“‘As much as our country is known for its hospitality, New Zealand cannot become a maritime Covid-19 safe haven for everyone in unfortunate circumstances’.”
“Immigration NZ’s national manager of border and visa operations Peter Elms said their decision to knowingly travel here without approval “0’demonstrates a blatant disregard for New Zealand’s border restrictions’.”
NZ has nearly eradicated Covid again, so we are a desirable destination, and we need to ensure we are strict otherwise every Tomaz, Diyk, und Harri will be sailing here.
I dont understand what you mean by "shit no" and repeating the extracts from the article don't help explain it. If I ran the country, I would be open to letting people dock provided I could be sure they posed no covid-19 risk.
You don’t run the country, and acting against the wishes of the majority and NZ scientific advisors sounds rather despotic.
They knew exactly what they were trying on, and had been firmly told that NZ does not want any yachts to winter over: “Upwards of 300 small yachts are stuck in limbo across the South Pacific, mostly in Fiji and French Polynesia.” from https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object...
I understand the worry that the tourists feel, stuck on their yachts. But NZ has decided we don’t want them, so they need to find another solution to their travel problems. This isn’t some sudden problem and they have had many months to sort out some solution, rather than hoping NZ might be lenient.
NZ is desperately trying to eradicate Covid, and we stand a chance of doing it, so long as we don’t do stupid shit like trusting tourists (who seem to regularly ignore lockdown rules and have been superspreaders in other countries).
They knew exactly what they were trying on, and had been firmly told that NZ does not want any yachts to winter over: “Upwards of 300 small yachts are stuck in limbo across the South Pacific, mostly in Fiji and French Polynesia.” from https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object...
I understand the worry that the tourists feel, stuck on their yachts. But NZ has decided we don’t want them, so they need to find another solution to their travel problems. This isn’t some sudden problem and they have had many months to sort out some solution, rather than hoping NZ might be lenient.
NZ is desperately trying to eradicate Covid, and we stand a chance of doing it, so long as we don’t do stupid shit like trusting tourists (who seem to regularly ignore lockdown rules and have been superspreaders in other countries).
>You don’t run the country, and acting against the wishes of the majority and NZ scientific advisors sounds rather despotic.
This is exactly the part I am rather confused by. Do the scientific advisors actually believe that there is no safe way to quarantine these tourists or that they pose an actual risk? It seems that it would be trivial from a logistics perspective for NZ do derisk the situation and the competent health advisors there would understand how.
Reading between the lines of what you are saying, it sounds like this is a political issue in NZ where the population feels afraid and hostile towards outsiders. Of course the collective people of NZ have the right to set immigration policy as they choose, as a matter of national sovereignty. I am simply curious as to why it is the way it is.
This is exactly the part I am rather confused by. Do the scientific advisors actually believe that there is no safe way to quarantine these tourists or that they pose an actual risk? It seems that it would be trivial from a logistics perspective for NZ do derisk the situation and the competent health advisors there would understand how.
Reading between the lines of what you are saying, it sounds like this is a political issue in NZ where the population feels afraid and hostile towards outsiders. Of course the collective people of NZ have the right to set immigration policy as they choose, as a matter of national sovereignty. I am simply curious as to why it is the way it is.
The borders are closed. That's not a technicality and having your own form of transport doesn't change this.
If travelling by ship takes more than 2 weeks, there is very good reason to assume, that they are Covid-free. Also they could be allowed to dock and be required to stay on the ship until cleared by testing. So yes, they have broken the word of the law, but the form of transport should make a difference.
Did you read the article? There is clearly a process in place where a ship can request a permit to dock and the Germans used it
> Their application was declined because the Director-General of Health was not reasonably satisfied that the ship had a compelling need to arrive in New Zealand that reached the high threshold required for either of these exemptions.
Nice. Just to be clear, there isn't a process. There is the ability to get an exemption. It's a default no.
Nice. Just to be clear, there isn't a process. There is the ability to get an exemption. It's a default no.
I think we agree on the facts. There is a process to get an exemption and without going through the process and a sufficient reason, the default is no.
If you allow flexibility on such a matter, people will come to expect it. Some will be doing things where the flexibility would be permissible, but a lot would go further and be surprised that flexibility cannot be extended to them. It's a very slippery slope, and doesn't really seem feasible to implement.
I'm no lawyer, but as someone who remembers the ludicrous, counterproductive ramifications of schoolyard "zero tolerance" policies against physical fighting (you might as well escalate any fight with a bully because you'll be punished no matter what), and as someone who's been let off the hook by cops a couple times in my life, I'm a firm believer in upholding the spirit of the law, not the letter. People aren't machines. The letter of the law exists merely for people to interpret and apply with good judgment and consideration of context, complexities of which are often offloaded into the phrase "a reasonable person".
Police can let people off the hook because they are already dealing in exceptional cases. They only get involved by exception, and making exceptions on exceptions is scalable.
Everyone should expect flexibility when the law is applied to a case where it doesn't make sense. If someone makes the wrong assumption and is surprised, that is a risk they took and I am ok with that. This doesn’t mean the law needs to be applied unwavering when it doesn’t make sense.
They should have applied before disembarking, but three people traveling by boat for (I assume) over 7 days are a very low risk. A lot of regulations that have popped up have been overly blunt.
> but three people traveling by boat for (I assume) over 7 days are a very low risk.
I think there is an element of proportionality missing here. In this case, it's a very low risk of what? Well, it's a very low risk of going through yet another lock down. The previous one cost the NZ economy billions and threw something like 10% of their population out of work.
In case the picture isn't clear, I'm an Australian. We have benefit of experience here. One state, Victoria, managed to screw up their quarantine regime. The result has been over 700 deaths, and 100's of billions of dollars in lost work, and an economy that shrank by 40%.
The other extreme is Western Australia. Unlike the rest of Australia's states, they shut their borders completely, turning themselves into almost a country within a country. They have been and continue to be heavily criticised for it. The outcome has been no new cases for months, no lockdown whatsoever for months, and they are the only state whose economy grew in the last quarter.
In economic terms, it's very clear what the right course of action is. And given the cost of just one case leaking through the quarantine wall, I'm sort of surprised the penalties aren't hasher to send the strongest possible message. Burn the boat maybe?
I think there is an element of proportionality missing here. In this case, it's a very low risk of what? Well, it's a very low risk of going through yet another lock down. The previous one cost the NZ economy billions and threw something like 10% of their population out of work.
In case the picture isn't clear, I'm an Australian. We have benefit of experience here. One state, Victoria, managed to screw up their quarantine regime. The result has been over 700 deaths, and 100's of billions of dollars in lost work, and an economy that shrank by 40%.
The other extreme is Western Australia. Unlike the rest of Australia's states, they shut their borders completely, turning themselves into almost a country within a country. They have been and continue to be heavily criticised for it. The outcome has been no new cases for months, no lockdown whatsoever for months, and they are the only state whose economy grew in the last quarter.
In economic terms, it's very clear what the right course of action is. And given the cost of just one case leaking through the quarantine wall, I'm sort of surprised the penalties aren't hasher to send the strongest possible message. Burn the boat maybe?
> I dislike how people seem to think that the rules apply to the masses but on an individual level they don't apply to them.
It's particularly galling when the person with this mindset is also responsible for writing those very rules:
https://time.com/5842489/dominic-cummings-coronavirus/
It's particularly galling when the person with this mindset is also responsible for writing those very rules:
https://time.com/5842489/dominic-cummings-coronavirus/
Iceland's response to Covid-19 has been among the very best in the world. But the threat very much persists. The selfishness and criminal negligence of two French tourists has resulted in 400 new infections and counting, likely to result in 2-16 deaths given case fatality rates in Iceland (0.5%) and globally (4%).
I found myself recently attempting to explain to someone who seems strongly motivated not to understand the principle that a crisis can be both enduring and critical, in answer to the false assertion that “ongoing crises are not emergencies.”
Iceland proves my point. As has New Zealand recently: "Covid 19 coronavirus: 5 new cases as Jacinda Ardern reveals alert level call" (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object...)
This thing is with us until it isn’t. Covid operates on its own schedule, not ours. People not being selfish idiots would help one hell of a lot to speed the process and lower risks, deaths, and costs, however.
I found myself recently attempting to explain to someone who seems strongly motivated not to understand the principle that a crisis can be both enduring and critical, in answer to the false assertion that “ongoing crises are not emergencies.”
Iceland proves my point. As has New Zealand recently: "Covid 19 coronavirus: 5 new cases as Jacinda Ardern reveals alert level call" (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object...)
This thing is with us until it isn’t. Covid operates on its own schedule, not ours. People not being selfish idiots would help one hell of a lot to speed the process and lower risks, deaths, and costs, however.
I crossed the border (by Ferry) into Estonia the other day, and was informed by the border guard that I would need to isolate for 14 days[1], and asked to sign a document saying that I understood the isolation.
The way the border guard approached the subject, made it seem like he was worried that I would flip out at having my movements restricted. I'm guessing, but I think this was because I travel on an Australian passport, and the assumption becomes that I'm a tourist and that it will ruin my holiday.
As soon as I started talking about my isolation plans (I even went to the supermarket in Sweden before the ferry[2]), he relaxed a lot. It became "very good then, carry on".
I do wonder how many people are becoming unreasonable in situations like this.
[1] You can take tests to shorten it.
[2] It is allowed to go to the supermarket here while in isolation, but I didn't know that before arriving.
The way the border guard approached the subject, made it seem like he was worried that I would flip out at having my movements restricted. I'm guessing, but I think this was because I travel on an Australian passport, and the assumption becomes that I'm a tourist and that it will ruin my holiday.
As soon as I started talking about my isolation plans (I even went to the supermarket in Sweden before the ferry[2]), he relaxed a lot. It became "very good then, carry on".
I do wonder how many people are becoming unreasonable in situations like this.
[1] You can take tests to shorten it.
[2] It is allowed to go to the supermarket here while in isolation, but I didn't know that before arriving.
The people traveling abroad currently are mostly absolute idiots.
Exactly the kind that will break mandatory isolation and are way more likely to have an ongoing covid infection than a random person from the general population, due to overall careless behaviour.
The sensible people are all waiting in their homes.
So yes, I guess the border guard you spoke to has had to endure tantrums from these people on a daily basis
Exactly the kind that will break mandatory isolation and are way more likely to have an ongoing covid infection than a random person from the general population, due to overall careless behaviour.
The sensible people are all waiting in their homes.
So yes, I guess the border guard you spoke to has had to endure tantrums from these people on a daily basis
It's my impression that Europe has been a little bit more relaxed than "only idiots are traveling". It's only now that the numbers are rising again that they're again putting increased measures in place.
Yes, it's correct, it was possible to travel between EU countries during the whole summer without that much restrictions (some places required a quarantine of 14 days, but others didn't). The number of identified cases only started to rise again in central Europe around mid August.
Why do you think there is a magical virus barrier at the border?
It does not matter if you travel to the next city or to the country nearby. Yes, there are clusters but at least in Europe we do not have vast empty areas between populated places. It is pretty much a continuum.
It does not matter if you travel to the next city or to the country nearby. Yes, there are clusters but at least in Europe we do not have vast empty areas between populated places. It is pretty much a continuum.
Travel creates new unidentified clusters, the tourists also tend to leave the area rather quickly => very hard to find and trace who originally caused the cluster, and who were in contact.
Tourists also tend to have much different riskier behaviour compared to the average native inhabitant of a city (eg nightclub hopping many days in a row)
Tourists also tend to have much different riskier behaviour compared to the average native inhabitant of a city (eg nightclub hopping many days in a row)
If you're travelling a short distance over a mostly open land border then sure. If you're flying somewhere then it's a different story.
There isn't a magical virus barrier at the border. But there's a jurisdictional barrier there. Contact tracing across the border is much more painful than doing it locally. Our civilization-level immune system is bureaucratic in nature, so you can say that national border is a barrier for its antibodies.
> I do wonder how many people are becoming unreasonable in situations like this.
Pushback on masks or any type of covid-altered behavior is not limited to "walmart meltdown" youtube social shame videos.
While it has been walked back, poll workers in a Missouri county were told: "You may act surprised that you don’t have a face mask on properly and then apologize as you put the mask on,” “Wear your mask correctly until the voter leaves the polling place. Please do this every time a voter says something to you.”
[1] https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/516943-st-...
Pushback on masks or any type of covid-altered behavior is not limited to "walmart meltdown" youtube social shame videos.
While it has been walked back, poll workers in a Missouri county were told: "You may act surprised that you don’t have a face mask on properly and then apologize as you put the mask on,” “Wear your mask correctly until the voter leaves the polling place. Please do this every time a voter says something to you.”
[1] https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/516943-st-...
> I do wonder how many people are becoming unreasonable in situations like this.
Would be an interesting stat. I would hope not that many but expect a large population given they'd be people who have elected to take short-term vacations in foreign country during a pandemic, they'd either be very self-centered or not very bright.
Would be an interesting stat. I would hope not that many but expect a large population given they'd be people who have elected to take short-term vacations in foreign country during a pandemic, they'd either be very self-centered or not very bright.
My wife worked with fashion models before covid, and as one would expect - they aren't the brightest people out there, and sure enough, cheap plane tickets! woohoo! - they go off to mexico, europe, wherever and post photos to instagram of them partying it up without masks, and sure enough, they got covid. And this is why my wife had to quit in March, because she knows how idiotic, selfish and reckless those people can be.
> People not being selfish idiots would help one hell of a lot to speed the process and lower risks
In my opinion, not quite. What it highlights is that non-pharmaceutical interventions like quarantines and lockdowns are at best tools (very blunt tools) to slow down the virus. But you can't win against it with them alone.
In this case, negligence, but you can imagine that errors can and will be made simply because we aren't perfect. And the spread will start again.
It is a completely unsustainable strategy on the long run, and that's why countries (at least the ones which can afford that) should look more into pharmaceutical development and therapeutic options.
In my opinion, not quite. What it highlights is that non-pharmaceutical interventions like quarantines and lockdowns are at best tools (very blunt tools) to slow down the virus. But you can't win against it with them alone.
In this case, negligence, but you can imagine that errors can and will be made simply because we aren't perfect. And the spread will start again.
It is a completely unsustainable strategy on the long run, and that's why countries (at least the ones which can afford that) should look more into pharmaceutical development and therapeutic options.
To quote six-months-ago-me, yes, curtailing spread through quarantine and hygiene is our principle tool, "for the duration of the epidemic, or until such time as any control is utterly futile" and recognises "Epidemiological response is about reducing vectors, contacts, reservoirs, and susceptibility, as well as second-order risks. Limiting movement, enhanced disease monitoring, contacts-tracing, quarantine, free treatment, mandatory vaccination (if available), financial aid and intervention to individuals, businesses, and the financial sector (in that order)".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22528060
It's possible for diseases to drop below the noise floor or sustaining transmissiion (plague, hantavirus), or for mutual evolution to reduce severity (rhinoviruses, influenza). Vaccines will likely be the long-term resolution, but this likely remains 2+ years off by optimistic estimates (WHO, Bill Gates).
I consider a fair probability that an eendemic state will be the new normal.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22528060
It's possible for diseases to drop below the noise floor or sustaining transmissiion (plague, hantavirus), or for mutual evolution to reduce severity (rhinoviruses, influenza). Vaccines will likely be the long-term resolution, but this likely remains 2+ years off by optimistic estimates (WHO, Bill Gates).
I consider a fair probability that an eendemic state will be the new normal.
This response is not sustainable when applied to entire populations for extended periods of time. Not only for the economy, but also for the mental well being of people: you can't build a society without contact (if you think this is too much, I've seen already people distancing from the elderly that might require aid for getting into a bus, for example, as if they were plagued).
Secondly, vaccines work, but people forget pharmacological treatments, which can make a terrible disease manageable. As someone with a background in pharmacology, it baffles me when these options are never considered (like a post, probably trolling, which I saw on HN once, "The drugs don't work. Enjoy your 24 months quarantine").
Secondly, the "2+ years off" depends on the estimates. These are estimates made with previous experience, where one could afford waiting, if need be. This is not the case.
"We can't wait 18-24 months", said at one point CanSino's CEO. I agree with him. Drugs or vaccines should, if the tests allow it (and despite the popular thinking, the current vaccines aren't rushed, the speed is mainly done because a lot of money has been poured into recruitment and monitoring) make sure that the situation is it at least lessened before that.
Because if not, people will start blatantly ignoring any recommendations from authorities (and that would also mean governments becoming even more heavy-handed than today, which is already worrying).
Secondly, vaccines work, but people forget pharmacological treatments, which can make a terrible disease manageable. As someone with a background in pharmacology, it baffles me when these options are never considered (like a post, probably trolling, which I saw on HN once, "The drugs don't work. Enjoy your 24 months quarantine").
Secondly, the "2+ years off" depends on the estimates. These are estimates made with previous experience, where one could afford waiting, if need be. This is not the case.
"We can't wait 18-24 months", said at one point CanSino's CEO. I agree with him. Drugs or vaccines should, if the tests allow it (and despite the popular thinking, the current vaccines aren't rushed, the speed is mainly done because a lot of money has been poured into recruitment and monitoring) make sure that the situation is it at least lessened before that.
Because if not, people will start blatantly ignoring any recommendations from authorities (and that would also mean governments becoming even more heavy-handed than today, which is already worrying).
As someone currently living here in Iceland this entire incident boils my blood. As most likely those two tourists will never be fined as it would 'send the wrong message' to tourists thinking of visiting the country.
At the moment we have an entire school shut down and increased restrictions and nothing has actually changed the dynamic so that miscreants won't ruin the progress after this 3rd wave passes. Due to this latest outbreak we're now at a daily infection risk rate of 87 or so, well above the 50 mark other countries use to determine risky countries.
The tourists should be named, shamed, fined and put back on a plane immediately.
At the moment we have an entire school shut down and increased restrictions and nothing has actually changed the dynamic so that miscreants won't ruin the progress after this 3rd wave passes. Due to this latest outbreak we're now at a daily infection risk rate of 87 or so, well above the 50 mark other countries use to determine risky countries.
The tourists should be named, shamed, fined and put back on a plane immediately.
> ... likely to result in 2-16 deaths given case fatality rates in Iceland (0.5%) and globally (4%).
I can't believe people continue to use CFR for evaluating risk. It's a totally worthless metric, and now that we have serological studies, an approximation of the IFR is available. The IFR is somewhere around 0.5% plus or minus.
The disease is effectively the same the whole world over and is equally fatal the whole world over. The reason for an order of magnitude spread in CFR is because Iceland is testing everyone (hence approximating the actual fatality rate, IFR) whereas every other country is testing different groups.
Yes the fatality rate is 4% for people who walk into hospital hugely ill. This is a sampling bias. It's like saying skydiving is 99% fatal based on counting only people whose parachutes failed to deploy. Then presenting the risk as "anywhere between 0.001% and 99%."
It's about 0.5% across the whole population. Much lower for children (lower than the flu). About the same as the flu for 20s and 30s people, particularly healthy ones. It's much, much higher for old sick people (20-30% in a nursing home, for instance).
There's no way to say 2-16 deaths based on the 400 infected by multiplying 400 by 0.5%; it could be zero if the 400 infected were kids, and it could be 150 if the French folks did a tour of nursing homes.
[edit] 'just-juan-post' provided a link to a study indicating my figures are overstated and the fatality rates are probably half that. [1]
[1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-5352
I can't believe people continue to use CFR for evaluating risk. It's a totally worthless metric, and now that we have serological studies, an approximation of the IFR is available. The IFR is somewhere around 0.5% plus or minus.
The disease is effectively the same the whole world over and is equally fatal the whole world over. The reason for an order of magnitude spread in CFR is because Iceland is testing everyone (hence approximating the actual fatality rate, IFR) whereas every other country is testing different groups.
Yes the fatality rate is 4% for people who walk into hospital hugely ill. This is a sampling bias. It's like saying skydiving is 99% fatal based on counting only people whose parachutes failed to deploy. Then presenting the risk as "anywhere between 0.001% and 99%."
It's about 0.5% across the whole population. Much lower for children (lower than the flu). About the same as the flu for 20s and 30s people, particularly healthy ones. It's much, much higher for old sick people (20-30% in a nursing home, for instance).
There's no way to say 2-16 deaths based on the 400 infected by multiplying 400 by 0.5%; it could be zero if the 400 infected were kids, and it could be 150 if the French folks did a tour of nursing homes.
[edit] 'just-juan-post' provided a link to a study indicating my figures are overstated and the fatality rates are probably half that. [1]
[1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-5352
>The reason for an order of magnitude spread in CFR is because Iceland is testing everyone (hence approximating the actual fatality rate, IFR) whereas every other country is testing different groups.
We're not actually testing everyone here, it's a common repeated trope from international news but testing is readily available to all who want to and we test all inbound arrivals via the single airport (now we do, didn't before). They can either self quarantine for 14 days after that or get another test in 4-5 days.
We're not actually testing everyone here, it's a common repeated trope from international news but testing is readily available to all who want to and we test all inbound arrivals via the single airport (now we do, didn't before). They can either self quarantine for 14 days after that or get another test in 4-5 days.
Fair enough, although that wasn't really my point. The point I was making was about selection bias and methodologies leading to massive disparities between a number that we know should be the same the world over -- or at least within a range. Not within a couple orders of magnitude.
People are pointing to these "fatality rates" as though they're accurate, consistent and fair representations of the risk the disease poses to individuals. That's simply not the case. They're correct, but they're different and inconsistent.
People are pointing to these "fatality rates" as though they're accurate, consistent and fair representations of the risk the disease poses to individuals. That's simply not the case. They're correct, but they're different and inconsistent.
(Not singling you out here) It's a bit unsettling to limit the risk discussions to death rates. It feels like no one is compiling stats on people who are exiting Covid with new, life altering disabilities.
I've been waiting for evidence that this happens in non-neglible numbers for months.
Absolutely. Waiting for evidence is what one does when stats aren't being compiled.
Wikipedia's Covid-19 article links to ongoing studies:
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-08-12/long-covid-what-is-it-wh...
https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-complications
From WebMD: "Some people -- about 1 in 6 -- will have complications, including some that are life-threatening."
From ITV: "a study by King's College London found an estimated 10% of people with the virus take at least three weeks to recover, with 250,000 people in the UK alone thought to experience symptoms for 30 days or more. Many of those experiencing long tail coronavirus were fit, active people whose lives have been completely turned upside down by the ongoing symptoms."
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-08-12/long-covid-what-is-it-wh...
https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-complications
From WebMD: "Some people -- about 1 in 6 -- will have complications, including some that are life-threatening."
From ITV: "a study by King's College London found an estimated 10% of people with the virus take at least three weeks to recover, with 250,000 people in the UK alone thought to experience symptoms for 30 days or more. Many of those experiencing long tail coronavirus were fit, active people whose lives have been completely turned upside down by the ongoing symptoms."
We are talking about disabilities, i.e. permanent (or at least long-lasting) and severe damage. Taking a few weeks to recover does not qualify.
I could end up being very wrong, but it's probably uncommon or else it'd surface somewhere other than support groups for those people and anecdotal accounts in local news stories. Enough celebrities and politicians have gotten it that if this were widespread, they'd be sounding the alarm en masse and we'd be hearing all about it.
Off the top of your head, do you recall any stories of "I had a bad case of Covid and am 100% now"?
I think there is an assumption that if you contract something that puts people in the ICU, you should expect your life to be permanently altered by it. I suspect that assumption is helping mute attempts to collect and quantify that data.
I think there is an assumption that if you contract something that puts people in the ICU, you should expect your life to be permanently altered by it. I suspect that assumption is helping mute attempts to collect and quantify that data.
Pretty much anything will put someone into the ICU in the right circumstances, which is why quantification of risk matters. Flu puts people into the ICU. Drinking too much water can put you into the ICU. Those are much smaller risks though.
Of course people continue believing in a death rate of 4-5%. Having panicked over a disease with a death rate below 0.5% must be quite embarrassing.
Having a preferred stat to wave around is certainly one advantage of front-loading Covid death stats with the negligibly infected.
I thought the French tourist thing was debunked? I remember seeing an article saying they hadn’t infected anyone
That story quotes one guy, who is not a government official, and provides no other evidence to back up its claims.
Sketchy news rehosting site run by two people is sketchy.
Sketchy news rehosting site run by two people is sketchy.
Cited AFP source is real (in french).
https://twitter.com/afpfr/status/1309551051306131456
https://twitter.com/afpfr/status/1309551051306131456
How odd that the text of the twitter thread (translated) is exactly the same as the article, right down to the exact same quote by businessman Kari Stefánsson
He is the CEO of Decode a large genetics testing company here which contributed a majority of the early testing to the populace before the National Health Service could catch up.
Both this article and the original post talk about the different "strains" of CoV2. I thought there were no real strains; and that the L/S strain reports from earlier weren't correct?
There are minor genetic variations that can be used to trace whether infections came directly from Wuhan or through Italy or wherever. These variations do not vary the function of the virus or its infectiousness or reproduction in any known way, but do enable some methods for tracing the spread. California has an aggressive ongoing effort to sequence the genes of all COVID-19 cases which has contributed to this.
COVID-19 re-infection by a phylogenetically distinct SARS-coronavirus-2 strain confirmed by whole genome sequencing (https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...)
Current studies suggest there are up to six distinct strains.
Current studies suggest there are up to six distinct strains.
Another source (in French) :
https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/covid-19-l-islande-dement...
https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/covid-19-l-islande-dement...
That's exactly the same article as the other, with minor differences. It's not a different source, but it might be the source of the text of the article at the sketchy news rehosting site.
> The selfishness and criminal negligence of two French tourists has resulted in 400 new infections and counting, likely to result in 2-16 deaths given case fatality rates in Iceland (0.5%) and globally (4%).
Interesting. Do you have any source that corroborates that story?
Interesting. Do you have any source that corroborates that story?
Worldometers provides case history (total, current active, daily new) and calculated CFR. Calculated likely mortaality is based on this data.
Global:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Iceland:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/iceland/
Global:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Iceland:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/iceland/
> Worldometers provides case history (...)
It seems you didn't understood my question.
I asked for any source that substantiates your claim that a pair of French tourists were responsible for 400 infections.
You said, and I quote, "The selfishness and criminal negligence of two French tourists has resulted in 400 new infections and counting".
I asked for a source that substantiates that specific claim.
Do you have any source for that assertion?
It seems you didn't understood my question.
I asked for any source that substantiates your claim that a pair of French tourists were responsible for 400 infections.
You said, and I quote, "The selfishness and criminal negligence of two French tourists has resulted in 400 new infections and counting".
I asked for a source that substantiates that specific claim.
Do you have any source for that assertion?
Please use Covid.is for Iceland, there's a section in english.
Worldometers is one-stop shopping for the entire planet.
There are reasons aggregators are useful.
There are reasons aggregators are useful.
> Covid operates on its own schedule, not ours.
We do have some tuning knobs though, including vertical risk-stratification, which has collected dust around the world.
It is possible to have a much more acute and accelerated course among the least vulnerable populations while isolating the more vulnerable populations.
Whether Iceland and New Zealand will be viewed as successes depends in part on how much misery is inflicted during the long period it will take to finally reach herd immunity in those places, and how many people in vulnerable sub-populations are infected along the way.
We do have some tuning knobs though, including vertical risk-stratification, which has collected dust around the world.
It is possible to have a much more acute and accelerated course among the least vulnerable populations while isolating the more vulnerable populations.
Whether Iceland and New Zealand will be viewed as successes depends in part on how much misery is inflicted during the long period it will take to finally reach herd immunity in those places, and how many people in vulnerable sub-populations are infected along the way.
Population x Fatality Rate will tell you how much it "costs" to achieve herd immunity.
That also doesn't take into account long term impacts that are not fatal.
That also doesn't take into account long term impacts that are not fatal.
> Population x Fatality Rate will tell you how much it "costs" to achieve herd immunity.
...what? My comment was about risk-stratification. "Population x Fatality Rate" is the formula we are resigned to use because we're not doing risk-stratification.
This is what Katz, Ioannidis, Gupta, Osterholm, etc. (it, many of the most trusted experts on this topic) have been saying all along, and being ignored not only in the hugely ignorant US response, but also in the more sophisticated ones.
> That also doesn't take into account long term impacts that are not fatal.
Yes, there are rare complications from all viruses that can cause long-term disease. But we're fighting a pandemic right now, so it's probably not time to focus on phenomena of rounding-error incidence and which are not unique to this virus.
...what? My comment was about risk-stratification. "Population x Fatality Rate" is the formula we are resigned to use because we're not doing risk-stratification.
This is what Katz, Ioannidis, Gupta, Osterholm, etc. (it, many of the most trusted experts on this topic) have been saying all along, and being ignored not only in the hugely ignorant US response, but also in the more sophisticated ones.
> That also doesn't take into account long term impacts that are not fatal.
Yes, there are rare complications from all viruses that can cause long-term disease. But we're fighting a pandemic right now, so it's probably not time to focus on phenomena of rounding-error incidence and which are not unique to this virus.
> That also doesn't take into account long term impacts that are not fatal
This is the new narrative and it makes no sense. The largest impact of this virus are the elderly and they can get long term effects from any infection, bacterial or viral. I read the 60+ person UK case study on long term effects published out of Charlottesville and almost all the major conditions were in the elderly or high risk workers (possibly medial workers; the paper didn't say for privacy reasons).
It's way too early to talk about "long term effects," when this hasn't even been around that long. Remember that 96% of fatalities in the US are people 55 and over, most of those in long-term care and retirement facilities. The areas that were hit the worst (Michigan, California, Kirkland/Seattle) were all cases of bad policy in regards to nursing homes.
This is the new narrative and it makes no sense. The largest impact of this virus are the elderly and they can get long term effects from any infection, bacterial or viral. I read the 60+ person UK case study on long term effects published out of Charlottesville and almost all the major conditions were in the elderly or high risk workers (possibly medial workers; the paper didn't say for privacy reasons).
It's way too early to talk about "long term effects," when this hasn't even been around that long. Remember that 96% of fatalities in the US are people 55 and over, most of those in long-term care and retirement facilities. The areas that were hit the worst (Michigan, California, Kirkland/Seattle) were all cases of bad policy in regards to nursing homes.
"Vertical risk stratification" as a search phrase returns very few results. Could you explain?
Try 'risk stratification virus' on Google Scholar to start to get a sense of the research field.
For specifics on Covid, I think look for materials from John Ioannidis (a long-time personal hero of mine) if you're interested in the research side, or David Katz (also someone I have followed closely for a while - kind of a MD version of Michael Pollan) if you're interested in the clinical side.
Both have published papers if that's a good medium for you, and both have solid videos on youtube if that's more your speed.
For specifics on Covid, I think look for materials from John Ioannidis (a long-time personal hero of mine) if you're interested in the research side, or David Katz (also someone I have followed closely for a while - kind of a MD version of Michael Pollan) if you're interested in the clinical side.
Both have published papers if that's a good medium for you, and both have solid videos on youtube if that's more your speed.
Say, this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/opinion/coronavirus-econo...
If you have specific references in mind, it's rather more efficient, and considerate, to list them yourself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/opinion/coronavirus-econo...
If you have specific references in mind, it's rather more efficient, and considerate, to list them yourself.
I use to live in NZ. At times I wish I had stayed because at least they've been out of this, but it's also an isolated island with ~4 million people.
Even though they've mostly had elimination (with one re-lockdown due to Auckland), I do agree it's a bad long term strategy. The T-Cell immunity research shows there may be more people who are immune than we think, and Sweden shows us this virus can safely burn out in a population.
People from NZ may not be able to safely travel out/into their nation for years.
I am very doubtful of a safe vaccine in any reasonable amount of time. Fatalities have dropped to the floor across the board, so everyone is going on and on about cases. We don't even collect the viral load amounts for PCR tests in most countries, so we have no idea how many infections are just traces of virus, versus full infections.
This whole show has been a clusterfuck. I think my predictions from March are coming true:
https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/covid-19-is-two-disease...
Even though they've mostly had elimination (with one re-lockdown due to Auckland), I do agree it's a bad long term strategy. The T-Cell immunity research shows there may be more people who are immune than we think, and Sweden shows us this virus can safely burn out in a population.
People from NZ may not be able to safely travel out/into their nation for years.
I am very doubtful of a safe vaccine in any reasonable amount of time. Fatalities have dropped to the floor across the board, so everyone is going on and on about cases. We don't even collect the viral load amounts for PCR tests in most countries, so we have no idea how many infections are just traces of virus, versus full infections.
This whole show has been a clusterfuck. I think my predictions from March are coming true:
https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/covid-19-is-two-disease...
> The T-Cell immunity research shows there may be more people who are immune than we think
As far as I understand from the currently-available data, at best, cross-reactive T cells may lessen the disease, but not prevent it. However, the data are not definitive.
As far as I understand from the currently-available data, at best, cross-reactive T cells may lessen the disease, but not prevent it. However, the data are not definitive.
People being "selfish" speeds up the process. The quicker people get infected, the faster this nonsense is over.
>Covid operates on its own schedule, not ours.
It reminds me of the Christmas Day truces, we were able to put aside our differences for a day.
But it seems we're incapable of understanding this doesn't apply to virology. Covid doesn't care if it's your wedding, sisters birthday or that your fathers dying.
We seem to assume that it has some kind of humanity or that the just lowering my mask to say something once won't have any affect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce
It reminds me of the Christmas Day truces, we were able to put aside our differences for a day.
But it seems we're incapable of understanding this doesn't apply to virology. Covid doesn't care if it's your wedding, sisters birthday or that your fathers dying.
We seem to assume that it has some kind of humanity or that the just lowering my mask to say something once won't have any affect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce
I think you're misunderstanding the psychology. It's not a matter of people literally believing virology doesn't apply to them; it's just a values tradeoff. The virus might not care if my father were dying, but I would, and I wouldn't allow a virus to stop me from being there for him.
Infection Fatality Ratios for COVID-19 Among Noninstitutionalized Persons 12 and Older: Results of a Random-Sample Prevalence Study
Sept 2020, Annals of Internal Medicine
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-5352
People aged 40 or below have a .01% chance of dying.
People over the age of 70 have a 1.17% chance of dying.
Overall the chance of dying from the virus is 0.26%.
I encourage you to share this information.
Sept 2020, Annals of Internal Medicine
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-5352
People aged 40 or below have a .01% chance of dying.
People over the age of 70 have a 1.17% chance of dying.
Overall the chance of dying from the virus is 0.26%.
I encourage you to share this information.
How does that reconcile with Covid-19's supposed R0 of ~5.7? (Honest curious question)
R0 is a statistical average, but even if we assume that every person infects exactly 5.7 other people, these two tourists would have infected 11.4 people. Those 11.4 people would infect a further 64.98 people. you're already pretty close to 100 after just two levels of spread.
The only reason it's limited to as low as 100 is that people are taking precautions to prevent the infection from spreading.
The only reason it's limited to as low as 100 is that people are taking precautions to prevent the infection from spreading.
Active case count has risen from a low of 8 on July 23 to 400 currently. Daily new cases from 1 to 49 in the same period.
R0 is an average metric. Averages are not your friend.
(don't downvote people who are asking a technical question!)
(don't downvote people who are asking a technical question!)
Some people will infect nobody. Some will infect one. Some infect 100.
5.7 would be the average (and it's an estimate, with many variables, some of which change from place to place and over time) of all these.
5.7 would be the average (and it's an estimate, with many variables, some of which change from place to place and over time) of all these.
It includes infections indirectly caused by them (i.e. people infected by people who got infected by the couple), for as far as it can be traced.
I hope these people get to make civil claims against the couple.
I hope these people get to make civil claims against the couple.
The R0 is an average across many behavior profiles. These individuals engaged in exceptionally dangerous behavior and are the part of the samples that are above the mean.
Statistics, distributions, outliers. R0 is just the average value.
Well, the country is reliant on tourism.
But bad apples are everywhere, I think such people need to be held against their will until they are no longer dangerous to others.
> I think such people need to be held against their will until they are no longer dangerous to others
That's immoral, unethical and insane:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMj1ficDelc
That's immoral, unethical and insane:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMj1ficDelc
I agree, though under the current circumstances I would have no problem with having individuals who do not honour quarantine rules "jailed" in quarantine hotels (we have one in Iceland).
Not specifically talking about these supposed two French tourists. Iceland obviously has had domestic cases of individuals who believe the virus to be a hoax, and thus decided not to quarantine after being tested positive.
These individuals were, according to memory, held against their will during the remainder of their quarantine and fined.
Not specifically talking about these supposed two French tourists. Iceland obviously has had domestic cases of individuals who believe the virus to be a hoax, and thus decided not to quarantine after being tested positive.
These individuals were, according to memory, held against their will during the remainder of their quarantine and fined.
A case in point, 3 German tourists will be getting a flight home from New Zealand after deciding they could sail into the country.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/12290190...