Your budget is Rt (effective reproduction number) which has to stay at or below 1.
All social and economic activities have a benefit to society and a cost in terms of Rt.
The goal is to get to Rt = 1 while maximizing the benefits to society. The problem is that covid is so contagious that many activities have a very high cost.
Seen this way, maybe it makes sense to throw bars and indoor dining out of the knapsack so we can put schools in.
The article's beginning and very ending was very informative and made clear nuance of the situation of keeping kids/college young adults from school.
The author lost me completely when they started injecting in one sided political perspectives and hindsight bias:
"...opposition to public-health guidance."
Which public-health guidance? Not all of the "opposition" was bad. Example: Any guidance from the W.H.O early on in the pandemic [0]
"Had Trump implored his supporters to wear masks and be patient, case counts might well be dropping across the country. "
Author chooses to show a particular political bias again and fails to mention the other major event that caused a uptick in cases (nationwide protests).
This whole section seems very out of place with the rest of the article, almost like The Atlantic had a requirement to show a left leaning bias to be published...
The point is that despite the article's callout of Trump, his political opponents weren't patient either, and flooded the streets while public health officials were still worried it wasn't safe. Selectively grumping at people for being impatient is unfair, and more importantly degrades the social trust that's required to make pandemic restrictions work effectively.
There are tons of people in the protest not wearing masks. It's politically dishonest not to assume some spread came from massive gatherings, especially where protesters were gassed. I know it's dangerous to say anything negative about protests but we need to be consistent and honest in order to maintain our credibility.
> Author chooses to show a particular political bias again and fails to mention the other major event that caused a uptick in cases (nationwide protests)
I'm tired of having to constantly address this point. I had hoped that people on HN would be able to do independent research, but I keep encountering this claim. No, the nationwide protests did not cause an uptick in cases. Multiple studies [1] [2] [3] seem to indicate that the coronavirus doesn't spread nearly as well outdoors as it does indoors. In fact, studies have indicated that one of the greatest surge predictors is card-present transactions in restaurants [4].
That is partly why here in Texas we're seeing such a strong resurgence. We reopened our bars and restaurants with reckless abandon and the result is a massive increase in cases across the state. At this point if you're claiming that the protests were the reason then you're showing your own political bias at play.
Most of the "resurgence" in cases in Texas is from about 3 counties, all in the border, all of them treating individuals crossing the bitter for better treatment.
If course, we could say the rest of the cases are simply from anyone now using the healthcare system who is being automatically tested even if they are being seen for something non covid related.
Of course if you really wanna get in the weeds, you could probably say that the median age for covid is about 36 and the death rate is about .04% for those under 50, well below a seasonal flu. Of course you still have democrat governors letting the bodies hit the floor among elderly nursing home residents. But children who are statistically unaffected by covid remain locked down with their parents, who are also minimally affected.
> Author chooses to show a particular political bias again and fails to mention the other major event that caused a uptick in cases (nationwide protests)
So far the data says otherwise. It seems to be a combination of three things that made spreading at the protests low.
1. They were open air events where people were moving around a lot,
2. A large percentage of attendees were wearing masks, and
3. Not many attendees were infected.
Health officials did heavy testing at several of the protests or of people shortly after they attended. In Minneapolis 1.8% were positive. Seattle was less than 1%. Boston was 1.1%.
If you encountered an infected person at a protest, #1 alone greatly reduced your chances of being around that person long enough to get an infectious dose unless they actually were coughing or sneezing on you.
Then you've got the masks making it even less likely.
With only 1-2% infected, you probably won't encounter enough infected people serially for all the little exposures to add up.
1. "...moving around a lot"
Yes, in some cases, but it's not a great point to make because there are also lot of cases where protesters are huddled together for a long period of time [0], [1].
2. I do agree on this point (based on live feeds I observed), but we wouldn't be getting the full story if we just talked about the protesters and not the tear gassed rioters, indoor looters and police officers who didn't wear masks. [2]
3. I have some differing perspectives on this point:
Most of the attendees that were tested statistically were a younger and less vulnerable population [3], this cost time, effort and money. How would this not have a direct impact on the future testing capabilities and resources that some of those cities needed for more vulnerable populations and rising cases [4]?
More than 3300 people who participated in the protests in Minneapolis got tested and 1.4% (now 1.8%) of them had the virus. This is needs to stated along side of the 7 day average infection rate that week of 3.7% out of 13,000 people. [5]
It's also fair to mention the most populated city in the US and the one that had some of the highest protesting wasn't asking people if they attended the protests when they got tested. [6]
I am sure there were other indirect impacts on virus patients like emergency response time and hospital services during the peaceful protests and non-peaceful protests that.
The author's argument seems to be that sending kids back to school can be less risky than keeping them home, if appropriate measures are taken. And that will require community support, funding, sacrifice, and creativity.
I wish the article had also explored solving the problem by mitigating the risks of staying at home. Perhaps applying the same level of community support, funding, sacrifice, and creativity to stay-at-home strategies would work even better.
It’s really hard to believe it when you have parents saying crap like “my daughter will never wear a mask and will hug her teachers and friends!”. That was one of the comments made by a parent in a survey my school district sent to help them understand how to proceed for the upcoming school year (we had access to the answers; anonymized, of course). And there were a lot with the same tone.
I don’t know, I’m afraid that even with all measures in place there are too many people that don’t believe the pandemics is real and don’t try even a bit to make their part as a member of the community.
Here in Belgium kindergarten and primary schools were reopened in June for about 3 weeks until summer holiday started. The kids didn't have to wear masks, nor the teachers while in front of their class. Teaching was more or less like before, albeit with a bit more distancing between teacher and kids.
Outside the classroom the kids from one class were not allowed to mix with kids from another. The playground was divided up in several areas and each class was assigned one. Breaks were in two shifts and all toys were washed in between (and rotated between areas). Dropping off and picking up the kids was also in two shifts and spread over as much entrances as possible to reduce contact with other bubbles. No parents allowed on the school premises.
As far as could be judged from those few weeks this didn't seem to impact the infection numbers. Even better was that the kids could have a more or less normal ending of the school year. If nothing changes my guess is that in September schools will start again in the same modus operandi, which I'm okay with.
But high school and up, that's a different matter...
17 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 49.8 ms ] threadYour budget is Rt (effective reproduction number) which has to stay at or below 1.
All social and economic activities have a benefit to society and a cost in terms of Rt.
The goal is to get to Rt = 1 while maximizing the benefits to society. The problem is that covid is so contagious that many activities have a very high cost.
Seen this way, maybe it makes sense to throw bars and indoor dining out of the knapsack so we can put schools in.
The author lost me completely when they started injecting in one sided political perspectives and hindsight bias:
"...opposition to public-health guidance."
Which public-health guidance? Not all of the "opposition" was bad. Example: Any guidance from the W.H.O early on in the pandemic [0]
"Had Trump implored his supporters to wear masks and be patient, case counts might well be dropping across the country. "
Author chooses to show a particular political bias again and fails to mention the other major event that caused a uptick in cases (nationwide protests).
This whole section seems very out of place with the rest of the article, almost like The Atlantic had a requirement to show a left leaning bias to be published...
0: https://www.businessinsider.com/who-changes-timeline-first-c...
You have a political bias and it is showing.
I'm tired of having to constantly address this point. I had hoped that people on HN would be able to do independent research, but I keep encountering this claim. No, the nationwide protests did not cause an uptick in cases. Multiple studies [1] [2] [3] seem to indicate that the coronavirus doesn't spread nearly as well outdoors as it does indoors. In fact, studies have indicated that one of the greatest surge predictors is card-present transactions in restaurants [4].
That is partly why here in Texas we're seeing such a strong resurgence. We reopened our bars and restaurants with reckless abandon and the result is a massive increase in cases across the state. At this point if you're claiming that the protests were the reason then you're showing your own political bias at play.
[1] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494348-new-study-finds...
[2] https://apnews.com/a288340b3bd3fbc62e564b3d0adfaa2e
[3] https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf
[4] https://fortune.com/2020/06/26/is-it-safe-restaurant-coronav...
If course, we could say the rest of the cases are simply from anyone now using the healthcare system who is being automatically tested even if they are being seen for something non covid related.
Of course if you really wanna get in the weeds, you could probably say that the median age for covid is about 36 and the death rate is about .04% for those under 50, well below a seasonal flu. Of course you still have democrat governors letting the bodies hit the floor among elderly nursing home residents. But children who are statistically unaffected by covid remain locked down with their parents, who are also minimally affected.
But hey, i think orange man is bad too..
So far the data says otherwise. It seems to be a combination of three things that made spreading at the protests low.
1. They were open air events where people were moving around a lot,
2. A large percentage of attendees were wearing masks, and
3. Not many attendees were infected.
Health officials did heavy testing at several of the protests or of people shortly after they attended. In Minneapolis 1.8% were positive. Seattle was less than 1%. Boston was 1.1%.
If you encountered an infected person at a protest, #1 alone greatly reduced your chances of being around that person long enough to get an infectious dose unless they actually were coughing or sneezing on you.
Then you've got the masks making it even less likely.
With only 1-2% infected, you probably won't encounter enough infected people serially for all the little exposures to add up.
2. I do agree on this point (based on live feeds I observed), but we wouldn't be getting the full story if we just talked about the protesters and not the tear gassed rioters, indoor looters and police officers who didn't wear masks. [2]
3. I have some differing perspectives on this point:
Most of the attendees that were tested statistically were a younger and less vulnerable population [3], this cost time, effort and money. How would this not have a direct impact on the future testing capabilities and resources that some of those cities needed for more vulnerable populations and rising cases [4]?
More than 3300 people who participated in the protests in Minneapolis got tested and 1.4% (now 1.8%) of them had the virus. This is needs to stated along side of the 7 day average infection rate that week of 3.7% out of 13,000 people. [5]
It's also fair to mention the most populated city in the US and the one that had some of the highest protesting wasn't asking people if they attended the protests when they got tested. [6]
I am sure there were other indirect impacts on virus patients like emergency response time and hospital services during the peaceful protests and non-peaceful protests that.
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEmealSp7Aw
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z82gf5bk8kM
2: https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/6/12/21288340/police-offi... https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/05/8701444...
3: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/24/recent-prot...
4: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/07/us-covid...
5: https://www.twincities.com/2020/06/12/mn-coronavirus-george-... (Published June 12, 2020)
6: https://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-contact-tracers-not-aski...
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/school-openings-acro...
It's mistaken to be worrying about reopening schools if you are blithely ignoring problems with care homes, diabetes sufferers, etc.
I wish the article had also explored solving the problem by mitigating the risks of staying at home. Perhaps applying the same level of community support, funding, sacrifice, and creativity to stay-at-home strategies would work even better.
I don’t know, I’m afraid that even with all measures in place there are too many people that don’t believe the pandemics is real and don’t try even a bit to make their part as a member of the community.
Edit: typos.
Outside the classroom the kids from one class were not allowed to mix with kids from another. The playground was divided up in several areas and each class was assigned one. Breaks were in two shifts and all toys were washed in between (and rotated between areas). Dropping off and picking up the kids was also in two shifts and spread over as much entrances as possible to reduce contact with other bubbles. No parents allowed on the school premises.
As far as could be judged from those few weeks this didn't seem to impact the infection numbers. Even better was that the kids could have a more or less normal ending of the school year. If nothing changes my guess is that in September schools will start again in the same modus operandi, which I'm okay with.
But high school and up, that's a different matter...