Coronavirus

[heyzeus]

WHO has already walked that back. It's not actually rare at all, they just had a hard time establishing it based on anecdotal evidence from China. The specific problem posed by COVID-19 is that, unlike other viruses, the symptoms are latent and sometimes never even present at all, but it's spreading during that time.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

WHO has already walked that back. It's not actually rare at all, they just had a hard time establishing it based on anecdotal evidence from China. The specific problem posed by COVID-19 is that, unlike other viruses, the symptoms are latent and sometimes never even present at all, but it's spreading during that time.

Is there a link where they (WHO) walk it back?

It took the CDC some time, but they in late May seemed to confirm asymptomatic or presymptomatic (not sure if that's a word, but those infected and not showing symptoms as of yet) were responsible for a large chunk of transmission...

This article has it at 40%.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/health/c ... index.html

A study in April found that viral shedding -- when people may be able to infect others -- could begin two to three days before symptoms appeared. In addition, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates in planning scenarios that 40% of coronavirus transmission is occurring before people feel sick.

Regardless, this is a pretty big deal to get right, from my understanding, because if asymptomatic or presymptomatic carriers can't spread the disease, then it's much easier to prevent the spread through proper screening.

[Jocephus]

my parents got tested yesterday 'cause they've been in contact with someone who tested positive last week. that person hasn't had any symptoms and my folks feel fine but it still makes me nervous of course. my folks are in pretty good health for their ages (69 and 73), should have results in couple days, etc.

[heyzeus]

Here's a thread on the WHO walking back their "asymptomatic" report from yesterday.

https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/1270362266668601347

[ghostrunner]

So Florida, Texas, and Arizona are all seeing increasing new cases lately. Has there been any discussion about whether this goes against the idea that warm weather decreases the risk, or is it just that they hadn't really take their turn yet and it would have been worse than this with cooler weather?

[Arthur Dent]

The "walk back" seems mostly to be emphasizing the high levels of uncertainty in any conclusions, which is a good attitude to keep in general with all this rapid science.

It's been an interesting illustration of the actual practical scientific method with this stuff. In the short term, there's just a ton of uncertainty, tentative conclusions that don't pan out, things that looked like they were true but turn out not to be, etc

[Arthur Dent]

So Florida, Texas, and Arizona are all seeing increasing new cases lately. Has there been any discussion about whether this goes against the idea that warm weather decreases the risk, or is it just that they hadn't really take their turn yet and it would have been worse than this with cooler weather?

Following the dynamics, it's extraordinarily difficult to come to any particularly solid conclusions. I watch the Austin data, and after a period of exponential growth, the apparent infection rate has been almost completely constant all the way back to March. Over that time period, there have been massive shifts in activity from lock down to pretty open again, and you just see nothing of that in the data. I can't understand it at all. Maybe the data is just really bad, and the constantness is driven by that dynamic, but really hard to say anything.

[heyzeus]

The "walk back" seems mostly to be emphasizing the high levels of uncertainty in any conclusions, which is a good attitude to keep in general with all this rapid science.

It's been an interesting illustration of the actual practical scientific method with this stuff. In the short term, there's just a ton of uncertainty, tentative conclusions that don't pan out, things that looked like they were true but turn out not to be, etc

The walkback also is to emphasize that there are four other studies already complete that show that asymptomatic people can and do spread COVID-19. It was irresponsible to even give the impression that they don't, because of the effect that might have on behaviors known to spread the disease (ie, "I don't need to wear a mask in public any more, I'm asymptomatic!").

It's pretty clear that, at a minimum, hot weather doesn't eliminate COVID. It's been 90+ for a few weeks now in Austin, and yesterday was one of our highest new case counts. But Texas began re-opening on May 1, and on the whole we are in a plateau - roughly the same number of new cases every day. It's quite possible that hotter weather suppresses transmission, and instead of say 100 new cases a day we'd be having some bigger number. But at least we aren't in an exponential growth curve here.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Haven't been paying much attention to other states, but obviously pay a lot of attention to what happens in Arkansas which is seeing increases in 1) cases, 2) hospitalizations, and 3) deaths above what we saw in April/May.

I think you can pretty safely say that warmer weather doesn't eliminate all risk. But, that also doesn't mean it doesn't mitigate it in some way. Probably just too early to know still.

Here's what has been happening in Arkansas.

A large chunk of the new cases in Arkansas have been in the northwest region (Bentonville, Fayetteville) which is where the University is as well as home offices for WalMart, JB Hunt, and Tyson. So, there's about half a million people up there. Interestingly, and even despite a lack of testing early on, they saw almost no cases the first couple months. However, it popped and they have recently gone up to a couple hundred+ new cases a day. On top of that, testing numbers have increased substantially from maybe a couple hundred statewide/day to 4K+ statewide/day. Further, there has been a lot of spread in dense housing/work spaces. Chicken houses have had some outbreaks and those cases have been brought home and spread throughout dense living spaces. So, it kind of illustrates your second question, ghost, that areas can probably be isolated for some period, but at some point it's still likely/possible that those areas will 'take their turn'.

By mid-may, we were at something like 600 active cases and 60ish hospitalizations statewide with something like 90ish deaths. Those numbers have increased to about 2800 active cases and 170ish hospitalizations with 160ish deaths. While a decent chunk of that has been in NWA, the rest of the state has seen some increases as well.

The govt is trying to say it's not related to re-opening which rolled out across the month of may, but restaurants/bars/gyms/barbershops/etc are open with some limited capacity now and we're seeing some increases statewide although nothing compared to what NWA is seeing. I dont' knwo if reopening is the cause, but it is undeniable that more people are getting out and about now.

It's still too early to know what's causing the increase in cases, but it is entirely possible that Arkansas was spared a large first wave and with the reopening is starting to see some of that contribute to the second wave.

Anyway, here's a link. The last page has the breakdown by region. Southeast is due to correctional facilities being tested. So, you can clearly see spikes when a large group of densely housed individuals is targeted with testing.

https://www.healthy.arkansas.gov/images ... on_6_8.pdf

[Arthur Dent]

The walkback also is to emphasize that there are four other studies already complete that show that asymptomatic people can and do spread COVID-19. It was irresponsible to even give the impression that they don't, because of the effect that might have on behaviors known to spread the disease (ie, "I don't need to wear a mask in public any more, I'm asymptomatic!").

Not sure I agree with the strong form. Saying we know that asymptomatic spread is rare was irresponsible, but I'm not convinced that officials should never "even give the impression" is a good idea either. The reality is we don't know how common asymptomatic spreading is. The initial statement, that it's rare, may be true! Public health officials shading the truth with the idea that false confidence will be the best way to influence behavior hasn't been great. We saw that with the masks advice where we were initially told they are useless in the general population apparently because officials were worried if they said they might help, medical workers who really need them wouldn't be able to get them. As a result, confidence in official pronouncements was undermined with the reversal. I think it would be better to be honest about the uncertainty. Maybe asymptomatic spread is uncommon, but it's still a good idea to reduce risk anyway.

Trust in public health recomdendations is extremely important and isn't served by fake confidence driven by the hope that this is the way to influence behavior.