One of the characteristics of this virus is its extreme variability in causing evidence of itself. This is highlighted by recent information from prisons. Testing for the virus in a prison in Ohio showed that most prisoners tested positive for the virus, even though 90+% were symptom-free. So what if most of the population already has the virus?
Another bit of strange information is that even after those infected with the virus recovered, had an immune response, some could still get the virus again. Surely this should damper the optimism that a vaccine is going to make some difference -- if the immune response to the real virus isn't so protective, why should the vaccine be any better?
I'm not one of those who thinks we should abruptly discontinue all protective measures, but this should begin to seep into the decision-making about this. At some point we will need to hand back the decisions about risk-taking to individuals instead of relying on governmental restrictions.
Monday, April 27, 2020
Sunday, April 19, 2020
6 feet away
We're seeing this more and more. What strikes me about it is that although this is a recommendation by the CDC, it seems to have become something of a rule. I look at it more of a show of "following the rules" than anything.
For most places I shop, there isn't any way to maintain 6 ft from people. Typical supermarket aisles are lucky if they're 6 ft wide, so to try to be literal about 6 ft, you would end up playing some sort of chess game, waiting for someone else to move. Then everyone's shopping takes longer, the store fills up, then they're likely to invoke some control on the number of people in the store. So your shopping lasts longer, which translates into longer potential exposure to whatever is floating around out there.
I think there is reason to believe there is at best quasi-science which led to this 6 ft suggestion. Presumably it's based on studies showing how far particles can travel when someone coughs or sneezes, and then someone at CDC threw a dart and came up with this 6 ft recommendation. My experience since this whole distancing began is that I have yet to see anyone sneeze or cough while I was shopping. If I did go into some store faced with such behavior, I would probably turn around and leave.
As far as I can tell, there isn't going to be any way to assess all of these precautions we're taking after the fact. What we're likely to be left with is someone's assessment that "obviously, we needed to do all these things." And so next time we go through the same arbitrary rules. Curiously, we put up with flu every year with only some general suggestions about how to avoid it, then leave up the decisions to us individuals.
For most places I shop, there isn't any way to maintain 6 ft from people. Typical supermarket aisles are lucky if they're 6 ft wide, so to try to be literal about 6 ft, you would end up playing some sort of chess game, waiting for someone else to move. Then everyone's shopping takes longer, the store fills up, then they're likely to invoke some control on the number of people in the store. So your shopping lasts longer, which translates into longer potential exposure to whatever is floating around out there.
I think there is reason to believe there is at best quasi-science which led to this 6 ft suggestion. Presumably it's based on studies showing how far particles can travel when someone coughs or sneezes, and then someone at CDC threw a dart and came up with this 6 ft recommendation. My experience since this whole distancing began is that I have yet to see anyone sneeze or cough while I was shopping. If I did go into some store faced with such behavior, I would probably turn around and leave.
As far as I can tell, there isn't going to be any way to assess all of these precautions we're taking after the fact. What we're likely to be left with is someone's assessment that "obviously, we needed to do all these things." And so next time we go through the same arbitrary rules. Curiously, we put up with flu every year with only some general suggestions about how to avoid it, then leave up the decisions to us individuals.
Monday, April 06, 2020
A new normalcy
Some years ago, as I mused on the development of "universal precautions" in hospitals that came about largely from the increasing HIV prevalence, it occurred to me that it would be useful and instructional if restaurants, like hospitals, made touchless dispensers of sanitizer available in a number of locations on their premises, i.e., not just in the restrooms.
The idea would be to encourage the employees and patrons to use them, the former on some fairly frequent basis, the latter at least once on entering the restaurant. These dispensers should be easily visible so that people can see they're being used, and so that managers could see that the employees were using them too.
There is also no reason not to have a hand sanitizer at the entrance to all groceries.
Right now, with the vast shortage of sanitizers, this is hardly feasible, but once we're out of this, I think this idea should be promoted. Even without COVID-19, we can expect our usual seasonal flu every year.
We run the risk that once all the current measures are no longer felt necessary, people will fall back into complacence about infections. Until the next one comes along.
The idea would be to encourage the employees and patrons to use them, the former on some fairly frequent basis, the latter at least once on entering the restaurant. These dispensers should be easily visible so that people can see they're being used, and so that managers could see that the employees were using them too.
There is also no reason not to have a hand sanitizer at the entrance to all groceries.
Right now, with the vast shortage of sanitizers, this is hardly feasible, but once we're out of this, I think this idea should be promoted. Even without COVID-19, we can expect our usual seasonal flu every year.
We run the risk that once all the current measures are no longer felt necessary, people will fall back into complacence about infections. Until the next one comes along.
Sunday, April 05, 2020
Aftermath of the virus
A dilemma that we will face after the virus subsides is an analysis of what worked and what didn't. As far as I can tell, there is very little science on which measures are worth doing to fight the spread of viruses.
On a practical level, various cities, states, and countries have done various things, gradually tending toward more austere acts like stay-at-home orders. Even if we did nothing, there will be an increase to a certain point, a leveling off, then a decline and disappearance of the infections.
Things are compounded by the range of illness that victims express, death at one end, but apparently little or no symptoms on the mild end.
Even now, the estimated number of cases is a fuzzy number, the only question being how many times that number is the real number of infections. We can presume that the number of deaths is more accurate, and there might even be some tendency to overestimate death strictly due to the virus versus it just being a coincidence along with the real cause of death.
After the fact, there will be hardening of opinions, so that many will say, "we needed to do everything we did for as long as we did in order to conquer this virus". But I can't imagine there being any way of proving or disproving this contention.
About the only hard science will be with the statisticians who can easily say, "here is the point where the R value began declining, and here is where it became less that one." The R value is in index of how many others an infected person transmits the virus to.
On the plus side, observation suggests that we getting past the panic buying mode, since various items are at least temporarily reappearing on grocers' shelves.
At the same time, there remains extreme uncertainty on how long the current measures will last. It isn't helped by Dr. Fauci and Trump talking about 100,000 deaths in the US -- if we only have 8,500 so far, how long will it take to reach 100,000? Does that mean we're in for this for a year? Looking at some detail, there were 92 more deaths today compared with yesterday. A month of days like that is 2,760. Divide that into 91,500 (the remaining number to reach 100,000), and you get 33 -- that's approaching 3 years!
Correction: One always has to understand the data you're looking at. I was watching the daily counts of infections and deaths on The Guardian website, and only later realized that, rather than showing counts from the day before, the counts were for that day, and since I look at the site early in the day, that's why the counts were so low.
On a practical level, various cities, states, and countries have done various things, gradually tending toward more austere acts like stay-at-home orders. Even if we did nothing, there will be an increase to a certain point, a leveling off, then a decline and disappearance of the infections.
Things are compounded by the range of illness that victims express, death at one end, but apparently little or no symptoms on the mild end.
Even now, the estimated number of cases is a fuzzy number, the only question being how many times that number is the real number of infections. We can presume that the number of deaths is more accurate, and there might even be some tendency to overestimate death strictly due to the virus versus it just being a coincidence along with the real cause of death.
After the fact, there will be hardening of opinions, so that many will say, "we needed to do everything we did for as long as we did in order to conquer this virus". But I can't imagine there being any way of proving or disproving this contention.
About the only hard science will be with the statisticians who can easily say, "here is the point where the R value began declining, and here is where it became less that one." The R value is in index of how many others an infected person transmits the virus to.
On the plus side, observation suggests that we getting past the panic buying mode, since various items are at least temporarily reappearing on grocers' shelves.
At the same time, there remains extreme uncertainty on how long the current measures will last. It isn't helped by Dr. Fauci and Trump talking about 100,000 deaths in the US -- if we only have 8,500 so far, how long will it take to reach 100,000? Does that mean we're in for this for a year? Looking at some detail, there were 92 more deaths today compared with yesterday. A month of days like that is 2,760. Divide that into 91,500 (the remaining number to reach 100,000), and you get 33 -- that's approaching 3 years!
Correction: One always has to understand the data you're looking at. I was watching the daily counts of infections and deaths on The Guardian website, and only later realized that, rather than showing counts from the day before, the counts were for that day, and since I look at the site early in the day, that's why the counts were so low.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
