Coronavirus 2019-nCoV

[Kung Wu]

It is starting to look more and more like isolation is irrelevant -- which is a bit mindbogglingly anti-intuitive.

But ... the ... data.

Sweden didn't impose any isolation restrictions at all and they peaked on about the 41st day.

[MelvinLoudermilk]

Nm

[RoyalShock]

What's the basis for that opinion? On the surface is makes no sense.

What do you mean "the" surface? Tennis is played on clay, grass and hard courts. You need to be more specific.

The one constant is, as has already been mentioned . . .

[pie n eye]

It is starting to look more and more like isolation is irrelevant -- which is a bit mindbogglingly anti-intuitive.

But ... the ... data.

Sweden didn't impose any isolation restrictions at all and they peaked on about the 41st day.

Even if the peak is the same, in terms of timeline, no matter what measures were taken, is not the death toll and number of total cases lower in places where isolation measures were instituted?

That was always my understating, that the isolation measures were never intended to stop it, just to reduce the number of cases at the peak to ensure that the health care system would not be overwhelmed.

[wsushox1]

It is starting to look more and more like isolation is irrelevant -- which is a bit mindbogglingly anti-intuitive.

But ... the ... data.

Sweden didn't impose any isolation restrictions at all and they peaked on about the 41st day.

It might be similar timeline to peak through a given population exposed to the virus. But we can't take that and assume that isolation is irrelevant. That's a big jump.

[Kung Wu]

Even if the peak is the same, in terms of timeline, no matter what measures were taken, is not the death toll and number of total cases lower in places where isolation measures were instituted?

You would certainly think so. I'll take a look at that.

That was always my understating, that the isolation measures were never intended to stop it, just to reduce the number of cases at the peak to ensure that the health care system would not be overwhelmed.

Absolutely. And the good thing is we know who the at-risk folks are now:

1) Elderly with health issues
2) Obesity
3) Diabetics

[Kung Wu]

It might be similar timeline to peak through a given population exposed to the virus. But we can't take that and assume that isolation is irrelevant. That's a big jump.

I think we can. Isolation is only relevant for at-risk folks, and we are dialed into who they are now. pie n eye's comment about the CFR difference is probably what you are saying though and that's gotta be looked at for sure.

[wsushox1]

I think we can. Isolation is only relevant for at-risk folks, and we are dialed into who they are now. pie n eye's comment about the CFR difference is probably what you are saying though and that's gotta be looked at for sure.

What I'm implying is that a given a general population (X) if the population that is out and about reduces to .2X then the coronavirus only has access to reaching .2X of the population meaning that (assuming .2X is representative of General Population X) hospital strain would be less than 1/5th than if the virus had access to the total general population X.

Now, where I agree with you is changing the aX part of the population where (a) is disproportionate number of healthy and non at risk people and where b = 1-a and thus bX is the old/unhealthy. Ideally a > .50.

But to say that isolation is irrelevant to case count and health care system load is, as you say, counterintuitive and hard for me to believe.

[ShockTalk]

Absolutely. And the good thing is we know who the at-risk folks are now:

1) Elderly with health issues
2) Obesity
3) Diabetics

Well, a lot of good that does. Your 2 just took in a big chunk of the population. While "overweight" has pretty much held a steady % of the population, obese and extreme obesity are on a continued fast rise. The word obesity will become the new "FAT". So the only way to make this all work is to be genteel and to say non-essentials need to isolate.

[MelvinLoudermilk]

The trend continues....this time in Los Angeles:


"Infections from the new coronavirus are far more widespread - and the fatality rate much lower - in L.A. County than previously thought."

http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/mediapubhpdetail.cfm?prid=2328

[ShockBand]

Here is some other data, from The Economist.

[ShockerDave]

Time to open things up!

[wsushox1]

The issue with the antibody tests is I'm actually not sure they are telling us that much - especially when it is showing between 3-6%. You're seeing roughly 3-6% of adults having antibodies in a given population with a current case population is less than 1%. If you started seeing antibodies in 10-20% then you're in pretty good shape.

If the antibody test is 95-98% effective (which is still a good effective rate) but the antibody test is showing a 2-5% prevalence then it is entirely possible that a majority of your seroprevalence is false positives. Granted, they are attempting to account test error with their 3-6% estimates. But unsure how the sampling was done.

This study is testing 1000 random people every two weeks. So the results will be interesting to see over time and how the % increases upward or downward.

But again, regardless of the true multiple of undercount - these studies clearly show a fatality rate much, much lower than than initially thought. Time to begin to get things moving again in a smart way!

[Kung Wu]

What I'm implying is that a given a general population (X) if the population that is out and about reduces to .2X then the coronavirus only has access to reaching .2X of the population meaning that (assuming .2X is representative of General Population X) hospital strain would be less than 1/5th than if the virus had access to the total general population X.

Now, where I agree with you is changing the aX part of the population where (a) is disproportionate number of healthy and non at risk people and where b = 1-a and thus bX is the old/unhealthy. Ideally a > .50.

But to say that isolation is irrelevant to case count and health care system load is, as you say, counterintuitive and hard for me to believe.

Yes, it is very hard to believe, and if it pans out to be true (and it does seem to be heading that way), it screams that there is a different type of delivery system than just human-to-human. It almost implies it can be passed on food or some other common denominator between isolated and non-isolated populations.

[Kung Wu]

The trend continues....this time in Los Angeles:


"Infections from the new coronavirus are far more widespread - and the fatality rate much lower - in L.A. County than previously thought."

http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov....cfm?prid=2328

Just screams of lower R0 than we thought and some alternative and undiscovered delivery method like food or cardboard. But I who knows?