Ohio cryptic lineage update(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Ohio cryptic lineage update
https://twitter.com/SolidEvidence/status/1665444603829407746
121 comments
> explaining that the virus is inactive once it passes through the gastrointestinal tract.
How do they know that only the gastrointestinal tract is infected in this person?
How do they know that only the gastrointestinal tract is infected in this person?
Because, presumably, it otherwise would have spread and could not have been isolated in this way.
The variant doesn't seem to be spreading in the community.
Thank you. I found the thread and title very… cryptic.
> While the researchers believe there is no threat to public health
How can they possibly know this? This person has a novel COVID strain that could be more or less virulent--we just have no way of knowing.
How can they possibly know this? This person has a novel COVID strain that could be more or less virulent--we just have no way of knowing.
If it's really been 2 years and it hasn't affected anyone else yet, I would have thought it's probably not that dangerous.
This is addressed in the twitter thread. It is believed that a gastrointestinal infection of COVID simply doesn't shed virus particles, except through excrement, and the GI tract does a good job of denaturing the viral proteins so that they are mostly inactive. That is probably why it hasn't spread. Yet.
But that says nothing about how infectious this strain would be, or how virulent if it were to be contracted as a respiratory infection. This could be the new Delta/Omicron, or worse. We could be one explosive diarrhea away from a new pandemic.
But that says nothing about how infectious this strain would be, or how virulent if it were to be contracted as a respiratory infection. This could be the new Delta/Omicron, or worse. We could be one explosive diarrhea away from a new pandemic.
Emphasis on "would be".
Currently it's not. So, currently no problem. If it changes, then it could be, yes. Which is true for any virus. If they change, they could potentially harm lots of people. That's life, and that's why we have the CDC and WHO etc. who keep an eye on things and try to react once that's needed. (Which lots of conspiracy theorists don't like, but that's life too.)
(Also, please avoid inhaling somebody else's feces.)
Currently it's not. So, currently no problem. If it changes, then it could be, yes. Which is true for any virus. If they change, they could potentially harm lots of people. That's life, and that's why we have the CDC and WHO etc. who keep an eye on things and try to react once that's needed. (Which lots of conspiracy theorists don't like, but that's life too.)
(Also, please avoid inhaling somebody else's feces.)
I think he has it backwards where this person lives and commutes. I spent 15 years living in Columbus and the idea that you would live in the very heart of the city and commute out to Washington Courthouse, a very small drive-by town (population of only 14k people!) in the huge rural expanse outside Columbus, is kind of bonkers. Columbus cost of living (especially in the heart of it) is much, much higher than WC so you'd be spending tons of money and commuting a couple hours a day for no good reason.
I suspect this person lives in WC and works in downtown Columbus, like at Nationwide Insurance or one of other big corporate employers there, or perhaps they even work at the statehouse for the state government located there. They're probably doing their business in the office every day since they're spending most waking hours there during the week (and naturally get into a regular schedule).
This would make a LOT more sense as the cost to live outside Columbus is significantly cheaper while commuting in isn't that bad (there are tons of highways all around and into the city). Perhaps this person even works a lower wage or benefit service job there and has no real healthcare benefits, paid time off, etc. to help them take care of health issues they might be suffering from a persistent COVID infection--more reason why they'd be living in a cheap town on the outskirts of the city and commuting in to their job downtown.
I suspect this person lives in WC and works in downtown Columbus, like at Nationwide Insurance or one of other big corporate employers there, or perhaps they even work at the statehouse for the state government located there. They're probably doing their business in the office every day since they're spending most waking hours there during the week (and naturally get into a regular schedule).
This would make a LOT more sense as the cost to live outside Columbus is significantly cheaper while commuting in isn't that bad (there are tons of highways all around and into the city). Perhaps this person even works a lower wage or benefit service job there and has no real healthcare benefits, paid time off, etc. to help them take care of health issues they might be suffering from a persistent COVID infection--more reason why they'd be living in a cheap town on the outskirts of the city and commuting in to their job downtown.
I think it's because it's seen always at he city and only sometimes at the town. You'd generally expect to see it primarily where you live.
However, the person may have a strong preference for poopin' on the clock.
However, the person may have a strong preference for poopin' on the clock.
Funny you mention that - I dated a woman for three years who never once went to the bathroom (#2) at her house or mine. This wasn’t an objective of her’s; rather, she had such a precise internal clock that she went regularly a few minutes past ten every day. On the weekends, this meant she went at the gym on Saturday and at the church on Sunday.
I didn’t think much of it at the time but realized years later that it was quite an incredibly odd streak she had built up.
I didn’t think much of it at the time but realized years later that it was quite an incredibly odd streak she had built up.
So she never once was at home at 10 am? No weekday, no weekend? Never ever? Never missed gym, never missed church, never had a day off, was never sick?
I call BS. Sorry to say, she may not have been entirely honest with you.
I call BS. Sorry to say, she may not have been entirely honest with you.
There are plenty of people who are super regular, and super disciplined in their routines. What would be really impressive to me is if she never once got food poisoning or flu and broke the streak in that way.
> What would be really impressive to me is if she never once got food poisoning
It'll never cease to amaze me how commonly people in the US get food poisoning based on their comments.
Not getting food poisoning or the flu in three years is surprising?
It'll never cease to amaze me how commonly people in the US get food poisoning based on their comments.
Not getting food poisoning or the flu in three years is surprising?
Very. American culture prior to Covid was one in which any time off ever was frowned upon. As a result, people often went to work sick due to social pressure. Additionally, many companies had rather bad food safety practices because people would be sick and tired for fear of having a manager think them lazy for being out sick.
She wouldn’t eat out with me and preferred to meal prep all her meals for the week on Sunday, which definitely probably helped avoid food poisoning.
I can only recall her being sick once, with the flu.
I can only recall her being sick once, with the flu.
And while she had that flu she still went to the gym and church and her office?!
It could happen but that's why they see the oddball measurement from WC if it's their home--maybe it's a weekend or off schedule event. Everything else could be happening first thing when they get to work and have a cup of coffee, five days a week like clockwork in regularity... I worked for the state of Ohio for a brief period in an office job and everyone always joked about getting paid to poop.
I was with her for the vast majority of that time. You may be right - I’m not going to be that anal about my partner’s bathroom habits - but I never saw anything to suggest otherwise.
[deleted]
Should this title be updated to "Tracking a single person through wastewater viral RNA"? The SARS-CoV-2 genome is RNA [1], and this is presumably what's being measured by this virology researcher. The tweets don't specify DNA or RNA, but from context it seems they are tracking the viral RNA.
This also removes some of the spooky surveillance overtones, since the genetic material being tracked originates from a virus, not a human genome.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293463/
This also removes some of the spooky surveillance overtones, since the genetic material being tracked originates from a virus, not a human genome.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293463/
OK, I've changed the title to that above, at least until someone suggests a better one.
Edit: on second thought, probably the original title is better (in keeping with the site guidelines). Better to let the comments hash out what it actually means.
Edit: on second thought, probably the original title is better (in keeping with the site guidelines). Better to let the comments hash out what it actually means.
And yet if this guy said "They're trying to track me through my waste in the sewers" they'd lock him up
Maybe but also think about all the lucrative podcast appearances he could have.
They don't lock people up for being crazy anymore. They might put you in a psych ward for 72 hours and give you sedatives, but that's it.
...what do you define locking up to be, if not exactly that?
When people use the term "locked up", they aren't referring to a long weekend, they're referring to a sentence that lasts at least several months.
If you confine me against my will for any overnight, I’d certainly describe that as “locked up”. I think I’m in the majority in that.
That's fine, but if you're put in the drunk tank overnight, and then refer to that as having been "locked up", then people will reasonably assume that you had spent several months or years in jail.
In context: Elizabeth Holmes has been locked up, while Anderson Lee Aldritch had a string of mental health evaluations before going on to commit mass murder.
In context: Elizabeth Holmes has been locked up, while Anderson Lee Aldritch had a string of mental health evaluations before going on to commit mass murder.
72 hours is a minimum incarceration. Any so-called professional expert can freely extend that at will.
> Any so-called professional expert can freely extend that at will.
I don't believe that is accurate, but I am open to changing my mind with more details.
In most states, an involuntary psychiatric commitment cannot extend beyond 72 hours without a formal hearing. This 3-day period allows patients to receive basic medical treatment, recover from psychotic episodes, and hopefully understand the need for further help.
The patient has the option of remaining voluntarily under care or committing to receiving continued outpatient treatment. Nevertheless, after the first 72 hours have passed, the patient can decline to comply with any further medical treatment.
I don't believe that is accurate, but I am open to changing my mind with more details.
In most states, an involuntary psychiatric commitment cannot extend beyond 72 hours without a formal hearing. This 3-day period allows patients to receive basic medical treatment, recover from psychotic episodes, and hopefully understand the need for further help.
The patient has the option of remaining voluntarily under care or committing to receiving continued outpatient treatment. Nevertheless, after the first 72 hours have passed, the patient can decline to comply with any further medical treatment.
"Formal hearings" are a technicality. Many hospitals now have courtrooms built into them, so the doctors don't have to go anywhere. You don't attend your hearing or receive any notification of it. Court petitions go right from the doctor to the judge to the hospital and you're in for it. It's their professional, expert opinion vs. the ravings of an ignorant crazy person in crisis. You're guilty until proven innocent, and good luck finding attorneys who are into that kind of thing. The longer you've been in the system and on their radar, the more likely you'll have a track record for them to dig up and show as evidence.
Saying you can't be held without a formal hearing is like saying the police can't search you without a warrant. Completely and irrefutably true by the letter of the law.
I'm not sure if you've ever tried to "decline compliance" with psychiatric treatment, but that will also go on your record every time, and sooner or later there will be a solid case built to court-order your "treatment", because you're just so bothersome to the system.
Saying you can't be held without a formal hearing is like saying the police can't search you without a warrant. Completely and irrefutably true by the letter of the law.
I'm not sure if you've ever tried to "decline compliance" with psychiatric treatment, but that will also go on your record every time, and sooner or later there will be a solid case built to court-order your "treatment", because you're just so bothersome to the system.
It's my understanding, through talking with heath professionals, that people typically come into the psych ward after having an interaction with police, and then they're let go after 72 hours. I know others that have admitted themselves, and then left after 72 hours.
A lot has changed since One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest; hospital administrators have almost zero interest in keeping people any longer than they have to, since many people do not have health insurance, and sometimes present a risk to hospital staff.
We have no legal way of forcibly removing people from society, for their own safety and the safety of others, until they have an interaction with police, or commit an actual crime, and then they go to jail.
A lot has changed since One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest; hospital administrators have almost zero interest in keeping people any longer than they have to, since many people do not have health insurance, and sometimes present a risk to hospital staff.
We have no legal way of forcibly removing people from society, for their own safety and the safety of others, until they have an interaction with police, or commit an actual crime, and then they go to jail.
They estimate the person is shedding ~2e12 genomes daily [1]. If this person were in Boston, one of ~3M people shedding into Deer Island sewershed, then their stool would be diluted with an average of 4e8 gal/d [2] from other people. This would give an average of 5e3 (2e12/4e8) copies from this person in every gallon of sewage going through the plant, or ~2 copies per mL of sewage. That's about 1% of what biobot finds in a typical mL of sewage these days. [3]
Which is good news, really. Before I did the calculation I was worried that a single highly-infected person might be enough to skew the numbers all by themselves even in a large city.
On the other hand, in a sewershed of 15k instead of 3M, this person's contribution would be enough to 4x the measured concentration.
[1] https://twitter.com/SolidEvidence/status/1665444608921223169
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_Island_Waste_Water_Treatm...
[3] https://www.mwra.com/biobot/biobotdata.htm
Which is good news, really. Before I did the calculation I was worried that a single highly-infected person might be enough to skew the numbers all by themselves even in a large city.
On the other hand, in a sewershed of 15k instead of 3M, this person's contribution would be enough to 4x the measured concentration.
[1] https://twitter.com/SolidEvidence/status/1665444608921223169
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_Island_Waste_Water_Treatm...
[3] https://www.mwra.com/biobot/biobotdata.htm
Wastewater surveillance is definitely highly useful and well-intended, but this brings up some troubling questions.
The obvious one being: To what extent could an arbitrary (non-infected) person's general whereabouts be tracked through municipal wastewater surveillance, given a large amount of resources?
The obvious one being: To what extent could an arbitrary (non-infected) person's general whereabouts be tracked through municipal wastewater surveillance, given a large amount of resources?
Essentially not at all, unless they have a weird enough mutation that they produce some protein unique to them. They're tracking this person because the only thing they know about them is the strain of covid they have. If you have a target in mind, literally any other method would be better than getting close enough to sample their shit and then running away and only tracking them on a long delay.
So first you have to tag someone with a unique pathogen that is subclinical and doesn’t transmit to others. But I guess if you have that level of access to someone, you can track in other ways.
But I think we’re a few decades away from being able to quickly hash every human gene to fingerprint individual dnas within huge populations.
But I think we’re a few decades away from being able to quickly hash every human gene to fingerprint individual dnas within huge populations.
Someoone shedding this much viral load to reach detectable levels in municipal sewage is almost certainly not having healthy bodily functions. It'd be pretty noticeable for most victims that they've been infected with something bad unless they have pre-existing immunocompromised conditions.
The amount of testing (and testing with accuracy) would be extremely high. Even if it's possible, I can't imagine the cost would be remotely feasible given the sheer number of ways to track someone without searching for their poop in sewers.
Maybe you're thinking the wrong direction...
For example looking for populations that aren't leaving houses.
For example looking for populations that aren't leaving houses.
If you're trying to track someone who doesn't leave their house, don't you already know where they are?
When I asked above, I was thinking about the problem of locating someone who you know well, but you just have no clue where they are. Something along the lines of nationwide decades-long hunt for the Unabomber, but in an alternate timeline where 1. his identity and his DNA (or his brother's) were known, but his location was not, and 2. he did not live in an off-grid cabin, but instead somewhere connected to a wastewater treatment plant, or regularly showed up in one.
It's a far-fetched scenario, but I don't know enough about the breakdown of DNA in wastewater to know if it'd be possible to locate him via this method. If he wasn't shedding a unique strain of a virus, let's say, but where his genetics are known.
This researcher explained to a reporter how they conducted a binary search of sewer lines from the treatment plant, all the way back to a single manhole which was only fed by a single employer with 30 employees. I just don't know if this is only possible using viral RNA, or if anyone's DNA would be possible to search on in a similar manner. For good public health reasons, we're likely to have continual wastewater surveillance at all major plants going forward - I just don't know how far it could be pushed.
It's a far-fetched scenario, but I don't know enough about the breakdown of DNA in wastewater to know if it'd be possible to locate him via this method. If he wasn't shedding a unique strain of a virus, let's say, but where his genetics are known.
This researcher explained to a reporter how they conducted a binary search of sewer lines from the treatment plant, all the way back to a single manhole which was only fed by a single employer with 30 employees. I just don't know if this is only possible using viral RNA, or if anyone's DNA would be possible to search on in a similar manner. For good public health reasons, we're likely to have continual wastewater surveillance at all major plants going forward - I just don't know how far it could be pushed.
Again, that's an incredible amount of testing and cost to identify poop in a public sewer system rather than identifying literally anything else. How do you have someone's DNA and identity but not their location? Who is this person that leaves no trace (financial, digital, social) except for feces? Like hypothetically yes, it's possible. But what real scenario could possibly make it even remotely feasible?
Brother: "Hey, the guy you are looking for is my brother, Ted. Here's a sample of my DNA, my parents' DNA, and Ted's baby teeth. He lives somewhere in Atlanta, probably using a false identity."
[deleted]
Much easier to track them via their smartphone, which already gives approximate location, and which is already collected in bulk by carriers and accessible 24/7 without a warrant by federal spies. They also have all the historical data so even if your phone is off or not with you they can estimate with a high degree of probability which city you are in at a given time.
Yes.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/05/human-genomic-bycatc... ("We can ID people from DNA that shows up in environmental studies")
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/05/human-genomic-bycatc... ("We can ID people from DNA that shows up in environmental studies")
If there were real time DNA sensors in every toilet, yeah, you could track everybody. But most sampling techniques don't offer that precision.
Well, we've got a good start with cameras installed in the vast majority of commercial toilets and urinals. It's not a huge leap to do more.
Did you write "could"? I thought that said "should". Hmm.
brb writing a dystopian fiction where members of the criminal underworld pee in bottles and do... other things... to evade the state. and then there's a sherlock-type investigator who's chasing a character through the sewers, etc.
It's already a thing to some extent, at least for heads of states. Kim Jong Un is known to have a personal toilet that's taken with him on foreign trips: https://www.businessinsider.com/kim-jong-un-brought-his-own-...
I've seen similar claims made on the Internet about the U.S. president and the French president, although these ones aren't proven. Macron did refuse a COVID test on his trip to Russia in early 2022 presumably due to concerns about DNA collection.
I've seen similar claims made on the Internet about the U.S. president and the French president, although these ones aren't proven. Macron did refuse a COVID test on his trip to Russia in early 2022 presumably due to concerns about DNA collection.
Without spoilers: that was a major plot point in Gattaca (1997).
Putin already does this.[0]. He doesn't want adversaries to know what drugs he's taking (presumably for cancer).
[0]https://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/Poutine-malade...
[0]https://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/Poutine-malade...
There may have learned a lesson from Stalin.
"According to Russian newspaper reports, in the 1940s Stalin's secret police had set up a special department to get its hands on people's faeces.
The ambitious aim: to analyse samples of foreign leaders' stools.
In other words, espionage via excrement."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35427926
"According to Russian newspaper reports, in the 1940s Stalin's secret police had set up a special department to get its hands on people's faeces.
The ambitious aim: to analyse samples of foreign leaders' stools.
In other words, espionage via excrement."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35427926
I remember saying that the Secret Service has a sophisticated portable toilet for the president to use when he's travelling, but the only source I could find was some conspiracy website. (I found it during the Bush II administration, so it's either gone from the Internet, or Google has probably lost it)
You'd enjoy "Urinetown: The Musical"
I'm a bit worried about this. Sometimes people on the internet get a bit... intense about solving a thing and finding someone. They don't always get it right either.
> If you do get a positive reading, I would suggest having someone else try with the same kind of test with their feces to be sure it isn’t a false positive. Weird shit happens.
well played.
well played.
What is this? They e found a highly infectious person via wastewater and want to identify them?
Not highly infectious, but the opposite. A person with a high viral load and a very long-lived infection, who is not infecting others. (If they were infecting others, they'd be finding the samples elsewhere over time.)
Highly infectious and with an unusual strain. Not sure how they can confirm that it’s just 1 person infected vs. a group.
But with common or typical strains, it wouldn’t be easy to determine if you have a few highly shedding individuals or a lot of lightly shedding ones. That’s one issue with wastewater sampling for infectious diseases, versus what the technique was developed for: detecting pharma/recreational drug use in a population.
But with common or typical strains, it wouldn’t be easy to determine if you have a few highly shedding individuals or a lot of lightly shedding ones. That’s one issue with wastewater sampling for infectious diseases, versus what the technique was developed for: detecting pharma/recreational drug use in a population.
> Not sure how they can confirm that it’s just 1 person infected vs. a group.
They've explained it before -- https://twitter.com/SolidEvidence/status/1665444605511311362... -- while they aren't confirming it's exactly one person, they've got strong data to suggest it's likely just one person, and for sure not some kind of community outbreak situation.
They've explained it before -- https://twitter.com/SolidEvidence/status/1665444605511311362... -- while they aren't confirming it's exactly one person, they've got strong data to suggest it's likely just one person, and for sure not some kind of community outbreak situation.
Always present in a part of a large city and sometimes present in a smaller town that largely commutes into that larger city (the closest part) isn’t that strongly suggestive of a single person to me.
To complicate things, people flush more than poop down the drain. And poop with different regularity along with location preferences.
(The second thing being another reason why wastewater analysis is better for drugs/metabolites that excrete through urine)
To complicate things, people flush more than poop down the drain. And poop with different regularity along with location preferences.
(The second thing being another reason why wastewater analysis is better for drugs/metabolites that excrete through urine)
Author of original Tweet has another thread on narrowing down the search space for cryptic lineages, although this wasn't the Ohio one: https://twitter.com/SolidEvidence/status/1587551682388295680
It may not be a single person, but the individual(s) being infected exhibiting the same movement patterns would certainly be living together in close contact, and the lack of community spread supports the group of patients being very small, possibly just an individual.
It may not be a single person, but the individual(s) being infected exhibiting the same movement patterns would certainly be living together in close contact, and the lack of community spread supports the group of patients being very small, possibly just an individual.
that was what I thought of: I know people have worked on detecting community meth or heroin or other drugs through the wastewater. I don't know how much that's being done, though.
more than twenty years ago (?) discarded pharma materials in the public wastewater, was identified as a serious environmental problem.. There was a public relations campaign funded at that time.. well-before the Sackler-era
What an amazing thing this is. They can tell from genomic analysis in sewage that, out of a 10k-20k population, an individual has a novel, persistent viral infection.
Yet another “we live in a cyberpunk novel” link…
[deleted]
This is fascinating. Are there other cities doing sewage analysis like this?
[deleted]
If you mean analysing sewage for COVID-19, then yes. I've been monitoring COVID levels in my community via https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater .
Yes, all across the world: https://www.covid19wbec.org/covidpoops19
This whole time we've been told that this is totally anonymous. Now we are seeing that it can most definitely be used to track people. Interesting.
Please read the thread. They're not tracking a particular individual; if they were capable of doing that, they would have reached out to the individual and there wouldn't be a thread at all.
The hypothesis is that it's the same individual, based on the fact that the virus samples are drifting together. From another tweet by the same author https://twitter.com/SolidEvidence/status/1666411725527171072 :
The lineage in just two sewersheds. The sequence drifts over time, but the sequence in the two sewersheds drift together. If it were multiple people the sequence would form distinct branches. We don't have proof it's one person, but it is the most likely explanation.
The hypothesis is that it's the same individual, based on the fact that the virus samples are drifting together. From another tweet by the same author https://twitter.com/SolidEvidence/status/1666411725527171072 :
The lineage in just two sewersheds. The sequence drifts over time, but the sequence in the two sewersheds drift together. If it were multiple people the sequence would form distinct branches. We don't have proof it's one person, but it is the most likely explanation.
I did read the thread and I understand it. The fact that they were able to narrow it down to one building with only 30 people means that it is definitely not many would consider to be anonymous.
From a news article in the thread:
“We started tracking it,” Johnson said. “So, we started from the main treatment plant of over 100,000 people, and sort of like checked all the lines. And all of them, only one of the lines had the lineage. And so we would just keep going — checking… all of the pieces of the web, figuring out– following it up, up the line until we got to a single manhole. That manhole actually only got waste from one place, which was a company (that) had about 30 employees.”
my point is valid. They are able to do quite a bit of tracking through wastewater. That removes most of the anonymity.
The twitter user you linked to seems to agree.
https://twitter.com/SolidEvidence/status/1665525245451665408
“We started tracking it,” Johnson said. “So, we started from the main treatment plant of over 100,000 people, and sort of like checked all the lines. And all of them, only one of the lines had the lineage. And so we would just keep going — checking… all of the pieces of the web, figuring out– following it up, up the line until we got to a single manhole. That manhole actually only got waste from one place, which was a company (that) had about 30 employees.”
my point is valid. They are able to do quite a bit of tracking through wastewater. That removes most of the anonymity.
The twitter user you linked to seems to agree.
https://twitter.com/SolidEvidence/status/1665525245451665408
Most people aren't subject to chronic infections of an unique novel virus lineage.
The subject here is anonymous.
Until he or she is not, and then they will be associated with all this discussion of their GI tract on the Internet.
This is deeply gross, and the researcher should rethink his/her approach to patient care. This is not a cool puzzle. This is a human being, who is just trying to live their life without being doxed by their poop.
This is deeply gross, and the researcher should rethink his/her approach to patient care. This is not a cool puzzle. This is a human being, who is just trying to live their life without being doxed by their poop.
https://twitter.com/SolidEvidence/status/1665444605511311362
This tweet alone could probably dox someone.
This tweet alone could probably dox someone.
https://twitter.com/SolidEvidence/status/1665752607233826817
"Washington Court House is a town of 15k (not an actual courthouse)."
"Washington Court House is a town of 15k (not an actual courthouse)."
[deleted]
OP addresses both the points further down thread -- Washington Courthouse is a city, not a building.
1600 people a day make that commute.
1600 people a day make that commute.
[deleted]
- "As academically interesting that this is, I think there are SERIOUS privacy concerns you're flirting with."
- "Yeah, it gets complicated."
It doesn't look complicated to me at all — you just want reputation points with your professional peers, and to hell with the patient.
This internet-mob victim has been completely doxxed to the general public: {place of work; place of residence; chronically immunocompromised (probably)}. That's an N=1 almost certainly.
- "Yeah, it gets complicated."
It doesn't look complicated to me at all — you just want reputation points with your professional peers, and to hell with the patient.
This internet-mob victim has been completely doxxed to the general public: {place of work; place of residence; chronically immunocompromised (probably)}. That's an N=1 almost certainly.
> COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Viral researchers believe someone in central Ohio has been infected with COVID-19 for at least two years, and they want to find that person.
I believe this is why various lockdown strategies didn't work to eliminate COVID, even in very authoritarian places which can effectively enforce the lockdowns.
All it takes is one person to have a persistent 'forever infection' like this, and you will never eliminate the disease from your country. Even if you lock down with no person to person contact for months, as soon as you end the lockdown the disease will appear.
The only way to eliminate the disease would have been to lockdown for a while, identify all 'forever infected' people and imprison them for life, and close your borders to outsiders forever.
I believe this is why various lockdown strategies didn't work to eliminate COVID, even in very authoritarian places which can effectively enforce the lockdowns.
All it takes is one person to have a persistent 'forever infection' like this, and you will never eliminate the disease from your country. Even if you lock down with no person to person contact for months, as soon as you end the lockdown the disease will appear.
The only way to eliminate the disease would have been to lockdown for a while, identify all 'forever infected' people and imprison them for life, and close your borders to outsiders forever.
I'm always amazed at the diversity of opinions about lockdowns. In this case, I'm flabbergasted anyone ever thought that lockdowns alone would eliminate the disease, or that elimination was the goal of lockdowns. Are either of these common beliefs?
Let alone that that lockdowns + prison + tracking those with persistent infections was the next logical step in the case of TFA
Let alone that that lockdowns + prison + tracking those with persistent infections was the next logical step in the case of TFA
In my understanding at the time the lockdowns were strictly for reducing the spread of the virus to the point that the hospitalization rate didn't exceed our hospital beds. The lockdowns in Washington State were very effective at limiting the pressure on hospital resources early in the pandemic to the degree that the Army withdrew their temporary field hospital in Seattle and the hospital ship the Navy had originally stationed in Seattle was moved to California where the lockdowns weren't as widely followed. The two hospitals were stationed in March and withdrawn by May or June as I recall. And we wouldn't see any further backup in Washington for the rest of the pandemic.
Another thing that gets missed in these discussions is that Washington State was following the best data that they had, and you could watch it on the Department of Health's website. When cases started trending upwards they would wait for the hospitalization rate to trend upward and the bed count to reach a certain point and then ratchet down on the controls. When the trends reversed and fell below a certain point they would loosen the controls. It was very predictable what would happen next if you watched the DOH's website.
There was also a very gradual decoupling of the hospitalization rate from the case rate the first summer vaccinations were widespread, and that seemed to demonstrate that as a public health measure vaccination was very effective.
Another thing that gets missed in these discussions is that Washington State was following the best data that they had, and you could watch it on the Department of Health's website. When cases started trending upwards they would wait for the hospitalization rate to trend upward and the bed count to reach a certain point and then ratchet down on the controls. When the trends reversed and fell below a certain point they would loosen the controls. It was very predictable what would happen next if you watched the DOH's website.
There was also a very gradual decoupling of the hospitalization rate from the case rate the first summer vaccinations were widespread, and that seemed to demonstrate that as a public health measure vaccination was very effective.
A seldom expressed idea is that maybe we acted close to optimally throughout this whole thing. I hesitated to write that, because I know someone will bring up a case where an official lied or there was widespread corruption (and I still welcome such arguments)...
But, some mistakes pushed us towards too much lock-down, and some mistakes pushed us towards too little lock-down, and perhaps they balanced out to something close to optimal. Not only in the case of lock-downs, but in other things too: surely some executive acted with primary concern for profits, and surely some others spread baseless anti-vax conspiracies. Maybe they balance out?
Maybe society is like a huge machine learning model. It has many errors, sometimes it estimates too high, sometimes it estimates too low. We are always striving to correct both types of errors, but the errors do not stop us from finding an approximate middle path which is often good enough.
But, some mistakes pushed us towards too much lock-down, and some mistakes pushed us towards too little lock-down, and perhaps they balanced out to something close to optimal. Not only in the case of lock-downs, but in other things too: surely some executive acted with primary concern for profits, and surely some others spread baseless anti-vax conspiracies. Maybe they balance out?
Maybe society is like a huge machine learning model. It has many errors, sometimes it estimates too high, sometimes it estimates too low. We are always striving to correct both types of errors, but the errors do not stop us from finding an approximate middle path which is often good enough.
> A seldom expressed idea is that maybe we acted close to optimally throughout this whole thing.
He doesn't go so far as to say "optimal," but Janan Ganesh recently made a similar point in the Financial Times:
https://on.ft.com/45SVbyD
Health policy aside, we clearly stimulated too much, but if you look at what the administration and lawmakers were saying back then they said things like "we'd rather err on the side of too much stimulus rather than too little," a sentiment that I think most people agreed with at the time, and, well, that's what we got.
He doesn't go so far as to say "optimal," but Janan Ganesh recently made a similar point in the Financial Times:
https://on.ft.com/45SVbyD
Health policy aside, we clearly stimulated too much, but if you look at what the administration and lawmakers were saying back then they said things like "we'd rather err on the side of too much stimulus rather than too little," a sentiment that I think most people agreed with at the time, and, well, that's what we got.
"any solution is optimal for an appropriately defined cost function"
In other words, whether something is "optimal" or not depends on your values and the trade-offs that you're willing to make.
> In this case, I'm flabbergasted anyone ever thought that lockdowns alone would eliminate the disease, or that elimination was the goal of lockdowns. Are either of these common beliefs?
Quarantines and lockdowns work really well for less communicable diseases. Given we didn't know how communicable COVID was early on, or that the absurdly easy to spread omicron variant would come along, assuming proper lockdowns could contain COVID wasn't unreasonable.
Also, prior to omicron, some countries (Vietnam, China are the two I know of) did manage to completely stop COVID with targeted lockdowns and quarantines.
Quarantines and lockdowns work really well for less communicable diseases. Given we didn't know how communicable COVID was early on, or that the absurdly easy to spread omicron variant would come along, assuming proper lockdowns could contain COVID wasn't unreasonable.
Also, prior to omicron, some countries (Vietnam, China are the two I know of) did manage to completely stop COVID with targeted lockdowns and quarantines.
> work really well for less communicable diseases
In particular, SARS was successfully contained and then eliminated using similar measures in 2002–2004, so it was not totally absurd to think in the initial phases that it might work again for SARS 2.
In particular, SARS was successfully contained and then eliminated using similar measures in 2002–2004, so it was not totally absurd to think in the initial phases that it might work again for SARS 2.
>Also, prior to omicron, some countries (Vietnam, China are the two I know of) did manage to completely stop COVID with targeted lockdowns and quarantines.
Ironically Omicron was exactly one such "cryptic lineage" that effectively descended from alpha and incubated in a presumed immuno-compromised and/or AIDS patient in South Africa while delta was already dominant.
So any potential for global elimination was already foiled by exactly the sort of thing discussed in the article.
Ironically Omicron was exactly one such "cryptic lineage" that effectively descended from alpha and incubated in a presumed immuno-compromised and/or AIDS patient in South Africa while delta was already dominant.
So any potential for global elimination was already foiled by exactly the sort of thing discussed in the article.
What China was doing before Omicron was still unsustainable. It was crushing exports and demographics.
I was unaware that forever infections existed. I was definitely of the opinion that if we all locked down for 2 weeks and made no contact with anyone, this would all go away because the disease would be dead.
I of course also realized that it's impossible for everyone to actually be locked down with no contact.
I of course also realized that it's impossible for everyone to actually be locked down with no contact.
Yeah, the definition of “lockdown” varied wildly. In many parts, any employer could make the case that an employee was “essential” if they had a job worth paying for.
Recreational activities (even solo ones) faced the harshest enforcement.
Recreational activities (even solo ones) faced the harshest enforcement.
> Recreational activities (even solo ones) faced the harshest enforcement.
The least functional restrictions, the harshest on mental health of those impacted, on top of severe isolation issues that many faced. Luckily I can handle isolation quite well contrary to most folks I know, and I had 1 and then 2 babies to consume all attention but few were so lucky.
Also Switzerland where I live didn't enforce basically any hard restriction on movement, just asked politely to stay home if you can, so whoever wanted to do sport outside just did it. Unlike say neighboring France which went batshit crazy with 1km-around-your-home one (so much for 'liberte', I find the more politicians talk about some catch word the less they actually mean to adhere to it when it matters).
The least functional restrictions, the harshest on mental health of those impacted, on top of severe isolation issues that many faced. Luckily I can handle isolation quite well contrary to most folks I know, and I had 1 and then 2 babies to consume all attention but few were so lucky.
Also Switzerland where I live didn't enforce basically any hard restriction on movement, just asked politely to stay home if you can, so whoever wanted to do sport outside just did it. Unlike say neighboring France which went batshit crazy with 1km-around-your-home one (so much for 'liberte', I find the more politicians talk about some catch word the less they actually mean to adhere to it when it matters).
Why isn't that a reasonable thought? If the virus was less contagious (e.g. SARS) it would have worked, no?
The stated goal of lockdowns was to "flatten the curve." The working assumption was that the virus would become endemic no matter what we tried, but by limiting interpersonal contact, we could decrease the rate of hospitalization to a manageable level. It is not reasonable to declare the lockdowns a total failure because they didn't achieve a goal they weren't intended to solve.
Sure, and it would have worked with COVID as well IF there was close to 100% compliance AND you could sustain that for 2 to 4 weeks. The only place that had real lockdowns where they actually welded the doors of people's apartments was China and they did effectively stop the spread of COVID until the much more contagious omicron came along. By then people were weary of lockdowns and the protests started threatening the government.
People don’t have an understanding and trusted health officials and politicians who all absolutely communicated poorly, lied, said ambiguous and conflicting things.
And then those people made it their whole identity till this very day.
So phrases like “stop the spread” was taken literally by both proponents and opponents.
And “mitigate the spread while we increase treatment capacity but then don’t” Was far too complicated for the population
And then those people made it their whole identity till this very day.
So phrases like “stop the spread” was taken literally by both proponents and opponents.
And “mitigate the spread while we increase treatment capacity but then don’t” Was far too complicated for the population
Flatten the curve was pretty straightforward, I thought.
> identify all 'forever infected' people and imprison them for life
Presumably this "forever infection" is due to the person lacking an immune response to overcome the disease. You probably just need to treat their HIV or whatever it is that's causing that, and they'll stop having COVID.
Presumably this "forever infection" is due to the person lacking an immune response to overcome the disease. You probably just need to treat their HIV or whatever it is that's causing that, and they'll stop having COVID.
Some folks may remember the saga of the TB-infected woman in Tacoma[0].
This is a difficult tightrope to walk. In her case, I suspect she's mentally ill, which is a very real problem.
The issue is that there's a "slippery slope," where all kinds of conditions could become used as excuses to lock people up.
Those of us "of a certain age," will remember that the Soviet Union routinely declared dissidents as "mentally ill," and threw them in gulags. The CIA and NSA also generally call whistleblowers and rouge agents "mentally ill," in order to discredit them.
If we can be locked up, because someone has decided that some characteristic, or chronic condition, warrants lifelong lockup, what will the world look like?
[0] https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/06/woman-with-untreated-...
This is a difficult tightrope to walk. In her case, I suspect she's mentally ill, which is a very real problem.
The issue is that there's a "slippery slope," where all kinds of conditions could become used as excuses to lock people up.
Those of us "of a certain age," will remember that the Soviet Union routinely declared dissidents as "mentally ill," and threw them in gulags. The CIA and NSA also generally call whistleblowers and rouge agents "mentally ill," in order to discredit them.
If we can be locked up, because someone has decided that some characteristic, or chronic condition, warrants lifelong lockup, what will the world look like?
[0] https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/06/woman-with-untreated-...
Typhoid Mary was locked up for life a century ago. When someone is chronically ill with a dangerous, infectious disease, their mental illness isn't the reason to lock them up, their infectiousness is.
Mary Mallon doesn't seem to have been mentally ill, just in denial of the impact of her actions, and so poor that she couldn't afford not to cook.
It seems to be legally sound and hasn't caused a slippery slope since that very famous case.
Mary Mallon doesn't seem to have been mentally ill, just in denial of the impact of her actions, and so poor that she couldn't afford not to cook.
It seems to be legally sound and hasn't caused a slippery slope since that very famous case.
In the case of COVID+HIV, though, even the "totalitarian solution" to the problem wouldn't need to involve locking anyone up for non-compliance. We're lucky enough to live in an age where we've invented things like injectable slow-release intramuscular gel-matrix drug-delivery systems.
So someone noncompliant would be potentially forcefully subdued (probably by police), so that a doctor could then administer them a one-time shot of antiretroviral drugs (without their consent), that would slowly leach into their body over one or several months, treating them all the while. As soon as that single shot is in their body and treating them, they'd be released.
Keep in mind that the goal here wouldn't be to make them HIV-free. Just to get their immune system working long enough to get them COVID-free. They can go back to having HIV if they want; HIV isn't an epidemic risk. So they don't need to be held captive for regular maintenance injections.
So someone noncompliant would be potentially forcefully subdued (probably by police), so that a doctor could then administer them a one-time shot of antiretroviral drugs (without their consent), that would slowly leach into their body over one or several months, treating them all the while. As soon as that single shot is in their body and treating them, they'd be released.
Keep in mind that the goal here wouldn't be to make them HIV-free. Just to get their immune system working long enough to get them COVID-free. They can go back to having HIV if they want; HIV isn't an epidemic risk. So they don't need to be held captive for regular maintenance injections.
Slippery Slope is a fallacy unless you can also demonstrate that the people in power genuinely want to throw us in gulags but are slowly rolling out their gulag policies to keep it on the down-low.
We shouldn’t discuss possible excesses of policy framework just because we can’t demonstrate that there’s genuine intent?
If I look out at the current incarceration rate and the loosening of marijuana policy, I can see a projected drop in future incarceration. (I’m all for releasing everyone whose only crime is non-violent drug possession or sales.) But we have all these prisons and all these people whose income depends on them being fairly full. That’s a lot of pressure to find other what the private sector would call revenue streams.
Pharma companies created a great fairly novel technique to target specific viruses. You don’t think it’s likely that they’ll create pressure for governments to use that capability to encourage at first and later to force multiple annual flu/other shots? That there won’t be sanctions for non-compliance as there are today for existing inoculations?
(I say this as someone who took a handful of C19 vaccines and gets a flu shot most years. This isn’t an anti-vax rant, but rather exploring the pressures that allowing government too much leeway to restrict individual freedom and violate bodily autonomy has. I don’t want to allow the burden of proof to shift to the individuals to prove the government has ill intent or else submit to a novel, restrictive policy.)
If I look out at the current incarceration rate and the loosening of marijuana policy, I can see a projected drop in future incarceration. (I’m all for releasing everyone whose only crime is non-violent drug possession or sales.) But we have all these prisons and all these people whose income depends on them being fairly full. That’s a lot of pressure to find other what the private sector would call revenue streams.
Pharma companies created a great fairly novel technique to target specific viruses. You don’t think it’s likely that they’ll create pressure for governments to use that capability to encourage at first and later to force multiple annual flu/other shots? That there won’t be sanctions for non-compliance as there are today for existing inoculations?
(I say this as someone who took a handful of C19 vaccines and gets a flu shot most years. This isn’t an anti-vax rant, but rather exploring the pressures that allowing government too much leeway to restrict individual freedom and violate bodily autonomy has. I don’t want to allow the burden of proof to shift to the individuals to prove the government has ill intent or else submit to a novel, restrictive policy.)
On the first subject, you are demonstrating likely intent from the private prison company so I wouldn't call it fallacious. On the second point, There has always been pressure from public health organizations to vaccinate at least healthcare workers. What has changed recently is the push to get EG public transportation workers vaccinated specifically for COVID. I don't think there's widespread support for that after the way everything went down.
The thing I think you're missing is that I'm not making the point there is never any ill intent from the people involved. Rather, you have to show intent in each case for the slippery slope to apply. In the case of private prisons it's pretty obvious that the organizations involved would like everyone to be incarcerated because there's a pretty clear income stream they can derive from incarcerated persons.
The other thing about "excesses of policy frameworks" is that there will always be excesses no matter which side you err on. What matters is the specific situation and the specific excesses and whether they were intentional or not.
I think in discussion we have to stick to specifics or we risk painting each other with a really broad brush. If you were to engage on a case-by-case basis I would probably say yes or no to slippery slope being a fallacy. Suggesting at the top that I think all applications of slippery slope are fallacious is painting with a broad brush a statement I made about the specific situation.
To bring it back to the original argument(and to paraphrase), I believe that going from "A woman in Tacoma who has been spreading TB and has been refusing reasonable requests to get treatment and to quarantine is being imprisoned" to "public health wants to throw us in the health gulag whenever we're sick and we don't immediately quarantine" seems like a stretch, and there's no evidence of the latter from the former or from any expressed or implied opinions that I've heard. So yes you need more evidence for that slippery slope argument for it not to be fallacious.
The thing I think you're missing is that I'm not making the point there is never any ill intent from the people involved. Rather, you have to show intent in each case for the slippery slope to apply. In the case of private prisons it's pretty obvious that the organizations involved would like everyone to be incarcerated because there's a pretty clear income stream they can derive from incarcerated persons.
The other thing about "excesses of policy frameworks" is that there will always be excesses no matter which side you err on. What matters is the specific situation and the specific excesses and whether they were intentional or not.
I think in discussion we have to stick to specifics or we risk painting each other with a really broad brush. If you were to engage on a case-by-case basis I would probably say yes or no to slippery slope being a fallacy. Suggesting at the top that I think all applications of slippery slope are fallacious is painting with a broad brush a statement I made about the specific situation.
To bring it back to the original argument(and to paraphrase), I believe that going from "A woman in Tacoma who has been spreading TB and has been refusing reasonable requests to get treatment and to quarantine is being imprisoned" to "public health wants to throw us in the health gulag whenever we're sick and we don't immediately quarantine" seems like a stretch, and there's no evidence of the latter from the former or from any expressed or implied opinions that I've heard. So yes you need more evidence for that slippery slope argument for it not to be fallacious.
User suggesting defaulting to literal imprisonment instead of just providing medical assistance to someone being infected by a virus is why HN gets a bad name in some places. A lot of tech bros have this incurable tendency to give the worst takes on non-tech subjects.
They're infected, but are they contagious? How contagious?
> The only way to eliminate the disease would have been to lockdown for a while, identify all 'forever infected' people and imprison them for life, and close your borders to outsiders forever.
It seems like you could identify them and then treat them so they wouldn't need to be locked up forever, but there'd be no reason to close your borders as long as you quarantined and tested everyone on entry.
> The only way to eliminate the disease would have been to lockdown for a while, identify all 'forever infected' people and imprison them for life, and close your borders to outsiders forever.
It seems like you could identify them and then treat them so they wouldn't need to be locked up forever, but there'd be no reason to close your borders as long as you quarantined and tested everyone on entry.
Given that, over a long period, this has shown up in two but hasn’t shown up in other sewer systems that are also being tested, I think we have strong (albeit indirect) evidence of the contagiousness.
[vouch] Why even was this flagged? It's a perfectly good curious comment.
- "The only way to eliminate the disease would have been to lockdown for a while, identify all 'forever infected' people and imprison them for life,"
Not a hypothetical. That was the initial reaction of several countries to HIV/AIDS, and Cuba actually implemented it [0].
[0] https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2019/11/29/are-public-healt...
- "The only way to eliminate the disease would have been to lockdown for a while, identify all 'forever infected' people and imprison them for life,"
Not a hypothetical. That was the initial reaction of several countries to HIV/AIDS, and Cuba actually implemented it [0].
[0] https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2019/11/29/are-public-healt...
Couldn't you instead test outsiders, and cure 'forever infected' people probably sometime within their life? The tradeoffs aren't worth it with effective vaccines, but if it was something as deadly as the original SARS with a long incubation time I'm sure we'd still be doing strict measures like that.
If this person is an ongoing source for infections, why doesn't this lineage show up anywhere else?
> If it were spreading it would not remain precisely restricted to 2 sewersheds for almost a year.
Source: [1]
The person has an ongoing infection in their body, but seemingly not infecting anyone else, i.e. not infectious.
Looking forward to hearing about the "Ohio variant"... /s
[1] https://twitter.com/SolidEvidence/status/1665498960063078401
Source: [1]
The person has an ongoing infection in their body, but seemingly not infecting anyone else, i.e. not infectious.
Looking forward to hearing about the "Ohio variant"... /s
[1] https://twitter.com/SolidEvidence/status/1665498960063078401
You are a prime example of why Hacker News should stick to strictly programming/startup stuff.
Read the thread. This lineage is not showing signs of community spread.
Read the thread. This lineage is not showing signs of community spread.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Viral researchers believe someone in central Ohio has been infected with COVID-19 for at least two years, and they want to find that person.
While the researchers believe there is no threat to public health, they hope this case holds much-needed answers to treating long COVID.
[...]
Johnson stressed that this is not a threat to public health, explaining that the virus is inactive once it passes through the gastrointestinal tract.
A spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Health said health officials are not fully convinced that the cryptic strain is linked to only one person, but they are not investigating it because it poses no threat to public health.