WHO says Covid-19 pandemic is 'one big wave', not seasonal(reuters.com)
reuters.com
WHO says Covid-19 pandemic is 'one big wave', not seasonal
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who/who-says-covid-19-pandemic-is-one-big-wave-not-seasonal-idUSKCN24T16U
19 comments
It’s well into summer in the northern hemisphere and the virus is still spreading as rapidly as ever, so that would be pretty good reason to think it’s not seasonal like the flu, which dies down a lot in the summer.
Maybe this is "died down"... That is scary to think. It could get worse in the winter. We just don't know.
It actually is winter in half the world and it's as bad as everywhere else. Makes me think weather doesn't play a factor, just people and the degree of protection they collectively take.
Problem is in Winter you also have normal flu season, pressure on hospitals is higher, etc.
The reason the UK locked down was to "protect the NHS". The lockdown worked - dramatically, spread was cut to almost zero overnight, the extra hospitals that were built weren't needed.
The reason the UK locked down was to "protect the NHS". The lockdown worked - dramatically, spread was cut to almost zero overnight, the extra hospitals that were built weren't needed.
> Problem is in Winter you also have normal flu season, pressure on hospitals is higher, etc.
Right, but the point is: Australia etc. are in winter. Right now. We have that data; there's more to the world than just the top half.
(Incidentally, COVID precautions appear to be working well on flu, too. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-measures-have-all-but-...)
Right, but the point is: Australia etc. are in winter. Right now. We have that data; there's more to the world than just the top half.
(Incidentally, COVID precautions appear to be working well on flu, too. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-measures-have-all-but-...)
Australian winter is hardly the same thing as a European or worse US winter.
Sydney's temperature tomorrow is a high of 17, low of 10.
Glasgow's temperature tomorrow is a high of 19, low of 10.
Sydney's temperature tomorrow is a high of 17, low of 10.
Glasgow's temperature tomorrow is a high of 19, low of 10.
Australia is more than just Sydney, and the Southern Hemisphere has more than just Australia.
It's plenty chilly in southern Chile.
It's plenty chilly in southern Chile.
As for Austrialia, Melbourne's high today is 16, Perth 21, Brisbane 21, Hobart 15, Adelaide 16.
NZ - Christchurch 12C, Wellington 15C, Aukland 16C.
South Africa, Cape Town high of 19, Joburg high of 18, similar to Glasgow in Summer.
South America? Yes it's chilly in Southern Chilie. There's barely anybody living there. Same in Argentina - Ushuaia has a population of 130k and a high of 6C today. Arkangel is 3 times the size and has an average high of -9C in winter. Fairbanks population about 100k and high of -17 in the winter.
The population south of Viedma, Neuquén and Valdivia (highs today of around 13) is well under 3 million, with towns mostly less than 100k.
Santiago's high today is 33. BA has a high of 15. That's not the same as a northern winter.
Compare with Beijing, population 20 million, average highs of 2C in winter. Chicago, 1C, 9 million. Moscow -4C, 12 million.
Comparing a Southern winter with a Northern winter is disingenuous - it's milder, there's far fewer people, and far smaller cities with far lower density.
NZ - Christchurch 12C, Wellington 15C, Aukland 16C.
South Africa, Cape Town high of 19, Joburg high of 18, similar to Glasgow in Summer.
South America? Yes it's chilly in Southern Chilie. There's barely anybody living there. Same in Argentina - Ushuaia has a population of 130k and a high of 6C today. Arkangel is 3 times the size and has an average high of -9C in winter. Fairbanks population about 100k and high of -17 in the winter.
The population south of Viedma, Neuquén and Valdivia (highs today of around 13) is well under 3 million, with towns mostly less than 100k.
Santiago's high today is 33. BA has a high of 15. That's not the same as a northern winter.
Compare with Beijing, population 20 million, average highs of 2C in winter. Chicago, 1C, 9 million. Moscow -4C, 12 million.
Comparing a Southern winter with a Northern winter is disingenuous - it's milder, there's far fewer people, and far smaller cities with far lower density.
There's no link between absolute temperature and temperature dependent diseases (or at least for rhinovirus which is the most studied).
Instead, the replication of rhinovirus depends on if the air temperature in the nasal cavity is above or below 33-35C[1]. The winter in most temperate regions gets low enough to trigger that.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/02/1411030112
Instead, the replication of rhinovirus depends on if the air temperature in the nasal cavity is above or below 33-35C[1]. The winter in most temperate regions gets low enough to trigger that.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/02/1411030112
Current high temps is a weird focus. (Hobart gets pretty chilly in winter; I've personally experienced snow in Ballarat. Meanwhile, in snowy upstate NY, I've also personally experienced a 70 degree F Christmas Eve. Temps vary!)
The key point is this: Australia's winters get cool enough to have a distinct cold/flu season every year.
The key point is this: Australia's winters get cool enough to have a distinct cold/flu season every year.
Yes, I specifically meant "worse in the US." I should have been more specific.
That's been my hunch too. It's going to be a dark winter.
This is what worries me. Although I would imagine that if that was the case we might be seeing it in the southern hemisphere already.
FWIW it is getting worse just now in the south of Brazil, where we have colder winters.
I always think of Brazil as hot and humid but I have never been there. How cold does it get in southern Brazil? I also never realized how large some countries are as far as population.
We've had -3ºC these weeks, which is about as cold as it gets here. It snows in some regions but it's a bit rare, once in a year in some places, once in a decade in others.
virus has died down in Europe and Asia, although may be upticking in Europe again.
Seems clear it's not heat related though - In Europe when people socially distanced there were few cases. As people are more blasé about it cases start to tick back up.
Seems clear it's not heat related though - In Europe when people socially distanced there were few cases. As people are more blasé about it cases start to tick back up.
I can’t speak for all of Europe, but in the U.K. we still have lots of business shut down, like swimming pools and cinemas (at least in Scotland). Masks are mandatory in supermarkets. Nurseries are returning next week. We have just enforced quarantine if you return from Spain and it’s islands due to a spike there. We are also doing local lockdowns in certain cities due to.
So it has died down, but that’s due to the measures we have enforced. The fact that localised spikes are happening I think proves that it’s not “run its course”.
So it has died down, but that’s due to the measures we have enforced. The fact that localised spikes are happening I think proves that it’s not “run its course”.
In the UK mask adherance in supermarkets is spotty at best, but when I say "died down" that's because we've been following social distancing measures. The feeling I get is that the public
However high density mass transit in cities is still empty on the most part (there's always exceptions) - most "knowledge workers" (the ones that cram into cities on overcrowded peak trains every day) are remaining at home. Those working in factories, warehouses and shops tend to drive there, so there's less opportunity to spread. Johnson is trying to get people back to offices to save share prices of Starbucks and Pret. I get the feeling it's that, combined with fewer people out at pubs, that's keeping it at bay.
We've expected to see increases ever since the VE Day conga lines, the Bournemouth Beaches, the BLM protests, and the pubs reopening, and on the whole we haven't seen it. I certainly don't think it's run it's course, but aside from local outbreaks which seem linked to poor factory conditions (the meat packing industry especially seems vulnerable), Leicester sweat shops) it does seem to be rumbling on without the exponential growth we saw in March.
However high density mass transit in cities is still empty on the most part (there's always exceptions) - most "knowledge workers" (the ones that cram into cities on overcrowded peak trains every day) are remaining at home. Those working in factories, warehouses and shops tend to drive there, so there's less opportunity to spread. Johnson is trying to get people back to offices to save share prices of Starbucks and Pret. I get the feeling it's that, combined with fewer people out at pubs, that's keeping it at bay.
We've expected to see increases ever since the VE Day conga lines, the Bournemouth Beaches, the BLM protests, and the pubs reopening, and on the whole we haven't seen it. I certainly don't think it's run it's course, but aside from local outbreaks which seem linked to poor factory conditions (the meat packing industry especially seems vulnerable), Leicester sweat shops) it does seem to be rumbling on without the exponential growth we saw in March.
yeah this is a no-brainer, though I did think flu+covid would be bad... the masks/social distancing (as much as we have anyways), may actually quell a bad flu season, unfortunately covid is 10x more transmissable so it's like trying to get rid of a squirrel vs an army of ants coming in every door and under the floor boards.
In summertime many people can go to their vacation homes with gardens far from the cities, and work remotely, so it's much harder to keep distance in the cold winter.
I expect the winter being worse for the countries that weren't hit that hard in the summer.
I expect the winter being worse for the countries that weren't hit that hard in the summer.
You're right, we won't know if this is an nadir or not in the whole thing, but she seems to be warning against the idea that this is the off season and we don't have to worry about it.
I can't figure out who the target audience is for - the people who have written off COVID also seem to have written off the WHO, and those who haven't see that there's still a major ongoing problem.
I can't figure out who the target audience is for - the people who have written off COVID also seem to have written off the WHO, and those who haven't see that there's still a major ongoing problem.
I don't trust the WHO but I have certainly not written off COVID. I think the WHO has too much China influence but I think they may still have some accurate information.
I don't know if its seasonal or not yet although I could see experts could start making predictions already. To me though it is not one big wave. Watching the numbers in the USA and other countries it appears that as restrictions are lifted cases rise. When they rise we add restrictions and they go down at a much slower rate. Its many smaller waves.
I don't know if its seasonal or not yet although I could see experts could start making predictions already. To me though it is not one big wave. Watching the numbers in the USA and other countries it appears that as restrictions are lifted cases rise. When they rise we add restrictions and they go down at a much slower rate. Its many smaller waves.
The fact that restrictions are effective or cause rate changes has nothing to do with the seasonal behavior of virus. The fact that restrictions don't cause immediate drops is pretty obvious A) there is time lag and B) no restrictions are 100% effective. It takes time for a change in the rate of spread to compound into reductions.
"many smaller waves" does not seem relevant to understanding the virus and in fact is what they are warning against. Where I live, if you dig down, "waves" appear to be simple thing, super spreader events at essential businesses and churches.
> WHO officials have been at pains to avoid describing a resurgence of COVID-19 cases like those in Hong Kong as “waves” as this suggests the virus is behaving in ways beyond human control, when in fact concerted action can slow its spread.
"many smaller waves" does not seem relevant to understanding the virus and in fact is what they are warning against. Where I live, if you dig down, "waves" appear to be simple thing, super spreader events at essential businesses and churches.
> WHO officials have been at pains to avoid describing a resurgence of COVID-19 cases like those in Hong Kong as “waves” as this suggests the virus is behaving in ways beyond human control, when in fact concerted action can slow its spread.
Yeah, the relationship I implied doesn't actually work both ways - but anyone who has written off the WHO is sure not to take their advice, and I have a hard time seeing anyone who hasn't written off WHO ignoring COVID. But people who have written off the WHO could still not write off COVID.
And based upon your assessment, you'd seem to agree with her point - "It’s going to be one big wave. It’s going to go up and down a bit. The best thing is to flatten it and turn it into just something lapping at your feet"
And based upon your assessment, you'd seem to agree with her point - "It’s going to be one big wave. It’s going to go up and down a bit. The best thing is to flatten it and turn it into just something lapping at your feet"
[deleted]
Covid-19 hardly mutates and people who were exposed to SARS 17 years ago have immunity to covid today. So yes, it’s pretty safe to say there won’t be a second wave of any significance. This was known since Februari and I don’t understand why you would think this disease will be seasonal when it isn’t anything like the seasonal viruses we know that mutate and don’t trigger good immune responses.
(It is seasonal in the sense that the R0 is higher in the winter when people are cooped together, but once you've got sufficient exposure in the community a second wave won't happen regardless)
(It is seasonal in the sense that the R0 is higher in the winter when people are cooped together, but once you've got sufficient exposure in the community a second wave won't happen regardless)
> Covid-19 hardly mutates and people who were exposed to SARS 17 years ago have immunity to covid today.
Citation, please. Any credible sources that I could find say that protection correlation with SARS is not clearly established and antibody levels to SARS fall off between 2-3 years after infection.
> there won’t be a second wave of any significance
There will or will not be but certainly not for the reasons you mention. Unlike flu and older coronaviruses, SARS-Cov-2 R_t seems to be driven exclusively by containment measures, not by seasonality, at least not at the present.
> once you've got sufficient exposure in the community a second wave won't happen regardless
We are nowhere near the "sufficient exposure" and it is already the most impactful pandemic in the last 100 years.
Citation, please. Any credible sources that I could find say that protection correlation with SARS is not clearly established and antibody levels to SARS fall off between 2-3 years after infection.
> there won’t be a second wave of any significance
There will or will not be but certainly not for the reasons you mention. Unlike flu and older coronaviruses, SARS-Cov-2 R_t seems to be driven exclusively by containment measures, not by seasonality, at least not at the present.
> once you've got sufficient exposure in the community a second wave won't happen regardless
We are nowhere near the "sufficient exposure" and it is already the most impactful pandemic in the last 100 years.
> Any credible sources that I could find say that protection correlation with SARS is not clearly established and antibody levels to SARS fall off between 2-3 years after infection.
It was T-cell immunity, not humoral immunity like with antibodies. Absence of antibodies != absence of immunity.
And here's the citation: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
It was T-cell immunity, not humoral immunity like with antibodies. Absence of antibodies != absence of immunity.
And here's the citation: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
[deleted]
I think there is enough information/data to be gained from the virus itself to determine if it has the same or similar characteristics of other corona viruses (like influenza) to support seasonality or season-less continuity.
Influenza is no Corona virus.
And just to be clear, it's neither like the Coronavirus (COVID-19), nor is it any sort of Coronavirus - it's the Influenza virus.
> We can't possibly have enough data, and even enough time since the start of the pandemic to come to this conclusion.
For, Pro, Against, Anti, WHO, CDC, vaccine, masks, orders... etc etc etc... I’ve been thinking this same thing since March. I’m absolutely fine being cautious and doing the right thing, but I think everyone pretends “the science is settled” on these things and it changes weekly - and it should because a lot of it is new - but now that’s used as a weapon by everyone invoked. Kinda sick of it.
It should be totally OK to say “we don’t know, so we won’t guess”.
For, Pro, Against, Anti, WHO, CDC, vaccine, masks, orders... etc etc etc... I’ve been thinking this same thing since March. I’m absolutely fine being cautious and doing the right thing, but I think everyone pretends “the science is settled” on these things and it changes weekly - and it should because a lot of it is new - but now that’s used as a weapon by everyone invoked. Kinda sick of it.
It should be totally OK to say “we don’t know, so we won’t guess”.
We don't know, we won't guess, but we have to have a policy, and that policy is based on what we do know. If what we do know changes, we change the policy.
The problem with that is that policy changing every week is not something that western populations can deal with, so policy changes have to be dampened somewhat.
The problem with that is that policy changing every week is not something that western populations can deal with, so policy changes have to be dampened somewhat.
I don’t think I necessarily disagreed with that.
The WHO saying it’s one big wave, is a guess though.
The WHO saying it’s one big wave, is a guess though.
They probably have more data than you do.
They had more data in January as well, it didn't stop WHO from lying.
The more they say the less credibility they have
It wasn’t on westerners radars until February in any serious way.
It spread through Winter 2019, Spring 2020, and is spreading during Summer 2020 when trying to “re-open.”
Pretty sure measurable science to support the idea exists. Oh sure that trend may change, but come on, RIGHT NOW it’s literally showing no signs of fading away if we “live normally.”
Why do you need 18 more months of plotting data to decide on what’s literally happening right before your eyes?
It spread through Winter 2019, Spring 2020, and is spreading during Summer 2020 when trying to “re-open.”
Pretty sure measurable science to support the idea exists. Oh sure that trend may change, but come on, RIGHT NOW it’s literally showing no signs of fading away if we “live normally.”
Why do you need 18 more months of plotting data to decide on what’s literally happening right before your eyes?
As counter intuitive as it sounds there is reason to believe that currently the penetration of the disease is much lower than in March.
The modeling from IMHE claims that in March the number of daily new infections were above 250K whereas today are about 120K.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america
see the tab called Infections and Testing
It just that we were measuring a lot many more people now. But it is true that in June there were fewer cases than today, but by far the most cases were in the Winter.
How else would be in the situation where 10% of population is already seropostive and at least as many don't develop antibodies since their symptoms are mild, thus we are probably over 20% of people having had the disease.
The modeling from IMHE claims that in March the number of daily new infections were above 250K whereas today are about 120K.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america
see the tab called Infections and Testing
It just that we were measuring a lot many more people now. But it is true that in June there were fewer cases than today, but by far the most cases were in the Winter.
How else would be in the situation where 10% of population is already seropostive and at least as many don't develop antibodies since their symptoms are mild, thus we are probably over 20% of people having had the disease.
> The modeling from IMHE shows that in March the number of daily new infections were above 250K whereas today are about 120K.
Yeah, but the IHME model is also extremely bad. It consists almost entirely of fitting a Gaussian to the number of cases over time. It’s mathematically impossible in their model for the case count to not go down.
Yeah, but the IHME model is also extremely bad. It consists almost entirely of fitting a Gaussian to the number of cases over time. It’s mathematically impossible in their model for the case count to not go down.
I am not sure I follow. For any epidemic that is well underway it is impossible for the number cases not to go down over time, it is only the time frame that is under question perhaps.
Statistics improve but what’s that mean for raw numbers?
Instead of 10s of millions on ventilators, and millions dead it’s millions on ventilators and hundreds of thousands dead?
Statistics are great for science but awful for social policy.
For the same reason that you don’t want someone deciding what religion you should regurgitate. You could end up in the wrong cohort someday.
Instead of 10s of millions on ventilators, and millions dead it’s millions on ventilators and hundreds of thousands dead?
Statistics are great for science but awful for social policy.
For the same reason that you don’t want someone deciding what religion you should regurgitate. You could end up in the wrong cohort someday.
Not sure what you are getting at. The original post is on the topic of whether there are more or fewer infections in the Summer, which it looks to be the case.
> It wasn’t on westerners radars until February in any serious way.
I'm no scientist but that was the end of Winter and there were very few people with it at the time.
Isn't it possible that it is indeed seasonal and it's now in its "weak phase"?
I'm no scientist but that was the end of Winter and there were very few people with it at the time.
Isn't it possible that it is indeed seasonal and it's now in its "weak phase"?
How does that explain the spiking that occurred as soon as states re-opened?
Politicians are load balancing the healthcare system, not the infection rates.
Politicians are load balancing the healthcare system, not the infection rates.
Well, precisely because the states re-opened and people got closer to each other.
The biology of the virus may not have a “weak phase” just because transmission rates went down. We load balanced transmission rates with distance.
That doesn’t mean the virus got weaker. Rates go up as soon as distance is removed? Doesn’t seem like the virus wants to slow down as a matter of its “real” physical properties
That doesn’t mean the virus got weaker. Rates go up as soon as distance is removed? Doesn’t seem like the virus wants to slow down as a matter of its “real” physical properties
It's depressing to see rational voices saying they don't trust the WHO or tending to conspiratorial thoughts. The WHO has first-hand details about the pandemic and they update their views and adjust their recommendations accordingly even if we have the feeling they are acting slowly or back-and-forth (e.g. when there was a critical and global shortage of materials for masks to give to health workers and only months later started saying wearing masks was the ideal and people simply bought the "they changed their mind so they must have been wrong all the time" idea). Without WHO the world would effectively be a much worse place for a good chunk of the world population and many contagious diseases would be around right next to some rich nations's borders. If they say it's one big wave it's because this is what the current data and analysis suggest. Can it be seasonal after all? Nobody freaking knows, but this is the best line of thought we have so far so let's act accordingly and not let the guard down please.
Respectfully, I think there is a lot of mistrust in WHO is because the PRC deliberately withheld information in the 2002-2004 SARS Outbreak:
https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/sars-gives-china-lesson-...
This is where the saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice same on me" comes into play. The below source shows the PRC covering up the COVID-19 outbreak:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51364382
I peronsally feel like the WHO should have been a lot more suspicious of the PRC and how they were reporting. However, it appeared like they took information from the PRC at face value in January, where containment could have spared much of this pandemic. Was it political? Much like someone else pointed out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM
A senior WHO offical praises the PRC, even after it is come out the the PRC covered up the initial outbreak. It is very hard to not view that is political.
To me, a lot of the mistrust of the WHO based on these sources are well founded.
https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/sars-gives-china-lesson-...
This is where the saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice same on me" comes into play. The below source shows the PRC covering up the COVID-19 outbreak:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51364382
I peronsally feel like the WHO should have been a lot more suspicious of the PRC and how they were reporting. However, it appeared like they took information from the PRC at face value in January, where containment could have spared much of this pandemic. Was it political? Much like someone else pointed out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM
A senior WHO offical praises the PRC, even after it is come out the the PRC covered up the initial outbreak. It is very hard to not view that is political.
To me, a lot of the mistrust of the WHO based on these sources are well founded.
And yet, three months after getting its first case in this epidemic, the PRC has handled it orders of magnitude better than the US.
You can only blame the PRC's poor response in January and February for some of our failures. Everything that we did wrong in mid-March and onward is squarely on our heads. Unsurprisingly, this failure gets politicized, by the people responsible deflecting their failures on another country.
Vietnam and South Korea and Australia and New Zealand somehow managed to get the epidemic more or less under control - probably because they were actually busy solving the problem, instead of pointing fingers at China and the WHO.
Why were they not dependent on the PRC and the WHO in making the correct response, but we were?
And before someone mentions that Vietnam, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand are islands (Well... Maybe not Vietnam!), I would also like to point out that Hawaii is an island, and currently has 400 times the per-capita cases of Vietnam... And 4 times the per-capita cases of South Korea - despite us knowing a lot more about how to stop the virus when it had its first case.
You can only blame the PRC's poor response in January and February for some of our failures. Everything that we did wrong in mid-March and onward is squarely on our heads. Unsurprisingly, this failure gets politicized, by the people responsible deflecting their failures on another country.
Vietnam and South Korea and Australia and New Zealand somehow managed to get the epidemic more or less under control - probably because they were actually busy solving the problem, instead of pointing fingers at China and the WHO.
Why were they not dependent on the PRC and the WHO in making the correct response, but we were?
And before someone mentions that Vietnam, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand are islands (Well... Maybe not Vietnam!), I would also like to point out that Hawaii is an island, and currently has 400 times the per-capita cases of Vietnam... And 4 times the per-capita cases of South Korea - despite us knowing a lot more about how to stop the virus when it had its first case.
>And yet, three months after getting its first case in this epidemic, the PRC has handled it orders of magnitude better than the US.
>You can only blame the PRC's poor response in January and February for some of our failures.
....what? Did you actually read the BBC article I sourced? They punished a doctor for trying to raise the flag on this. You are telling me they handled that better than the US? And how would the US actually be to blame for that?
>You can only blame the PRC's poor response in January and February for some of our failures.
....what? Did you actually read the BBC article I sourced? They punished a doctor for trying to raise the flag on this. You are telling me they handled that better than the US? And how would the US actually be to blame for that?
I'm going to preface this comment by noting that this is a subtle argument I'm making, and HN posts about C19 probably isn't the best place for this. But anyway..
I don't agree this was a "cover-up" in the sense of a government attempt to hide something they knew was going on.
As your own article says "What Dr Li didn't know then was that the disease that had been discovered was an entirely new coronavirus."
He was warned about spreading rumors. While I don't agree with the way they warn people for things like that in China, it isn't uncommon for this to happen to anyone who disturbs "social cohesion".
Additionally, it was done by the regional government, not the central one. In contemporary news coverage of the outbreak they note how the regional government tried to minimize the severity of the outbreak and it was the central government who intervened to lock the place down.
Could China have done better? Yes - I've run the timeline, and I think it was realistic for them to have known and acted about 2 or 3 days earlier than they Wuhan lockdown in the absolute best case. Do I think this would have made a difference for the rest of the world? Not really - the places that dealt with it well acted when the lock down occurred, and the places that didn't deal with it well ignored that.
It's worth noting that most of the world couldn't believe the Wuhan lockdown when it happened. I don't think places that ignored that news would have acted on any kind of WHO warning.
I don't agree this was a "cover-up" in the sense of a government attempt to hide something they knew was going on.
As your own article says "What Dr Li didn't know then was that the disease that had been discovered was an entirely new coronavirus."
He was warned about spreading rumors. While I don't agree with the way they warn people for things like that in China, it isn't uncommon for this to happen to anyone who disturbs "social cohesion".
Additionally, it was done by the regional government, not the central one. In contemporary news coverage of the outbreak they note how the regional government tried to minimize the severity of the outbreak and it was the central government who intervened to lock the place down.
Could China have done better? Yes - I've run the timeline, and I think it was realistic for them to have known and acted about 2 or 3 days earlier than they Wuhan lockdown in the absolute best case. Do I think this would have made a difference for the rest of the world? Not really - the places that dealt with it well acted when the lock down occurred, and the places that didn't deal with it well ignored that.
It's worth noting that most of the world couldn't believe the Wuhan lockdown when it happened. I don't think places that ignored that news would have acted on any kind of WHO warning.
The WHO didn't praise the PRC because they believed in them, they did it because they needed the PRC's cooperation to have any information about what's happening in Wuhan. They obviously kowtowed to the PRC in repeating their propaganda, so you should take their pro-Beijing messaging with a grain of salt, but expediency during the Wuhan outbreak doesn't make them puppets either.
The WHO is funded primarily by the United States (despite Trump's recent threats), the United Kingdom, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. China contributes less than a tenth of what the US does. The idea that WHO is permanently beholden to China just doesn't add up. Now that China is no longer the center of the outbreak, WHO's praise of the PRC has (as far as I can tell) completely stopped.
The WHO is funded primarily by the United States (despite Trump's recent threats), the United Kingdom, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. China contributes less than a tenth of what the US does. The idea that WHO is permanently beholden to China just doesn't add up. Now that China is no longer the center of the outbreak, WHO's praise of the PRC has (as far as I can tell) completely stopped.
>The WHO didn't praise the PRC because they believed in them, they did it because they needed the PRC's cooperation to have any information about what's happening in Wuhan.
In my personal belief, if the WHO had any intregity, they would have not played ball and warned every other country about what China is doing. They did the same exact thing back in 2002-2004 (per the article I sourced).
In my personal belief, if the WHO had any intregity, they would have not played ball and warned every other country about what China is doing. They did the same exact thing back in 2002-2004 (per the article I sourced).
An organization that puts out a tweet (on immunity) that was, in the form it was written, totally void of any biological sense, doesn't rank much on my scale of worthiness.
On the seasonality: at a seminar on the epidemiology of this disease at my institution right today, the evidence on the impact of experimental factors was described as "inconsistent" but not enough to rule out one possibility or the other.
Ironically, a WHO staffer in Italy actually made a claim (or so the media said) about a "second wave" just two weeks ago.
I really don't understand why it is hard for many (not necessarily just the WHO) to say "we don't know".
On the seasonality: at a seminar on the epidemiology of this disease at my institution right today, the evidence on the impact of experimental factors was described as "inconsistent" but not enough to rule out one possibility or the other.
Ironically, a WHO staffer in Italy actually made a claim (or so the media said) about a "second wave" just two weeks ago.
I really don't understand why it is hard for many (not necessarily just the WHO) to say "we don't know".
There can be multiple waves without the virus itself being seasonal, just due to human behaviour.
In particular, if we close everything down, get infections down to a nice low level, then declare victory and throw away all our masks and precautions, you better bet there'll be a "second wave" that has nothing to do with the weather.
In particular, if we close everything down, get infections down to a nice low level, then declare victory and throw away all our masks and precautions, you better bet there'll be a "second wave" that has nothing to do with the weather.
Honestly, thinking about winning against this virus with non pharmaceutical interventions is not sustainable on the long run. We need pharmacological means: drugs and vaccines.
By no means am I on the side of the WHO, but I'll try and play devil's advocate here.
How will most people interpret "we don't know"? You and I might understand the wisdom behind admitting to not having enough information, but the average person won't, and the media can easily mock this form of honesty.
Being knowingly wrong or inconsistent seems to be a better strategy since the attention span of the average person is rather short, and appeal to authority is a pretty effective mind trick.
How will most people interpret "we don't know"? You and I might understand the wisdom behind admitting to not having enough information, but the average person won't, and the media can easily mock this form of honesty.
Being knowingly wrong or inconsistent seems to be a better strategy since the attention span of the average person is rather short, and appeal to authority is a pretty effective mind trick.
However, this can lead to problematic outcomes, like WHO's tweet on immunity, which is absolutely bonkers from a biological perspective (and that was retracted, thankfully).
Appeal to authority may work, but authority can fail. And when that happens, the trust is lost.
Appeal to authority may work, but authority can fail. And when that happens, the trust is lost.
A critical shortage of cloth?
What's depressing is how politicized the virus has become. How someone feels about the job the WHO has done is probably tied more to their political beliefs than to reality.
If we can't say that the WHO dropped the ball with their mask recommendations then we really can't say anything at all.
What's depressing is how politicized the virus has become. How someone feels about the job the WHO has done is probably tied more to their political beliefs than to reality.
If we can't say that the WHO dropped the ball with their mask recommendations then we really can't say anything at all.
> A critical shortage of cloth?
Not cloth, but melt-blown (and to some extent spun-bond) non-woven polypropylene. This is the fabric used to make surgical masks, surgical gowns, bouffant caps, and disposable bedding for hospitals. All of these things were in shortage in March and April.
The shortage of melt-blown non-woven fabric itself is now mostly over. Still in shortage are N95 respirators, which use melt-blown electret non-wovens — material given an electrostatic charge so that it attracts particles in the air. International N95-equivalent respirators are available to the public at inflated prices, but genuine (American standard) N95 masks are still difficult to find at any price.
The WHO guidance against mask-wearing was a desperate attempt to mitigate N95 shortages. Even when all major health authorities were telling the public not to use masks of any kind, N95 respirators were widely purchased by people who had no idea how to use them. (I've been in NYC throughout the pandemic. It's extremely common to see N95's worn with facial hair, with un-pinched nose strips, or even with the lower head-strap dangling. N95's have little value if not properly sealed.) The WHO believed advising the public to wear any mask at all would exacerbate N95 hoarding and ultimately cost lives by making them unavailable to hospitals.
[Edit:]
Not sure why I'm getting downvotes for this. This isn't controversial information. Dr. Fauci has given this same explanation for why mask guidance changed:
> [Fauci] also acknowledged that masks were initially not recommended to the general public so that first responders wouldn’t feel the strain of a shortage of PPE.
> He explained that public health experts "were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply.”
> [...]
> “We wanted to make sure that the people, namely the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected,” Fauci concluded.
See: https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-c...
Not cloth, but melt-blown (and to some extent spun-bond) non-woven polypropylene. This is the fabric used to make surgical masks, surgical gowns, bouffant caps, and disposable bedding for hospitals. All of these things were in shortage in March and April.
The shortage of melt-blown non-woven fabric itself is now mostly over. Still in shortage are N95 respirators, which use melt-blown electret non-wovens — material given an electrostatic charge so that it attracts particles in the air. International N95-equivalent respirators are available to the public at inflated prices, but genuine (American standard) N95 masks are still difficult to find at any price.
The WHO guidance against mask-wearing was a desperate attempt to mitigate N95 shortages. Even when all major health authorities were telling the public not to use masks of any kind, N95 respirators were widely purchased by people who had no idea how to use them. (I've been in NYC throughout the pandemic. It's extremely common to see N95's worn with facial hair, with un-pinched nose strips, or even with the lower head-strap dangling. N95's have little value if not properly sealed.) The WHO believed advising the public to wear any mask at all would exacerbate N95 hoarding and ultimately cost lives by making them unavailable to hospitals.
[Edit:]
Not sure why I'm getting downvotes for this. This isn't controversial information. Dr. Fauci has given this same explanation for why mask guidance changed:
> [Fauci] also acknowledged that masks were initially not recommended to the general public so that first responders wouldn’t feel the strain of a shortage of PPE.
> He explained that public health experts "were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply.”
> [...]
> “We wanted to make sure that the people, namely the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected,” Fauci concluded.
See: https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-c...
> If we can't say that the WHO dropped the ball with their mask recommendations
You seem certain of this.
Please post a link to the high quality evidence that you think WHO should have used to recommend mask wearing in the general public.
This should be either a meta-analysis or RCT that shows a clear benefit.
We have plenty of RCTs of masks to prevent spread of respiratory disease.
It should be very easy to find one -- you're so certain you must have already read the research, and if the effect is so clear it'd be obvious to people doing the research.
You seem certain of this.
Please post a link to the high quality evidence that you think WHO should have used to recommend mask wearing in the general public.
This should be either a meta-analysis or RCT that shows a clear benefit.
We have plenty of RCTs of masks to prevent spread of respiratory disease.
It should be very easy to find one -- you're so certain you must have already read the research, and if the effect is so clear it'd be obvious to people doing the research.
> How someone feels about the job the WHO has done is probably tied more to their political beliefs than to reality.
I'm having trouble unpacking this statement.
Are you saying that a person's political ideology influences their judgment about what's objectively true regarding the WHO?
Or are you saying that even when two persons agree on the objective details of WHO's behavior, their different political ideologies lead them to different sentiments regarding how well WHO performed?
Or something else?
I'm having trouble unpacking this statement.
Are you saying that a person's political ideology influences their judgment about what's objectively true regarding the WHO?
Or are you saying that even when two persons agree on the objective details of WHO's behavior, their different political ideologies lead them to different sentiments regarding how well WHO performed?
Or something else?
[deleted]
I used to have your opinion, but the behaviour I witnessed from the WHO during this pandemic does not align with the behaviour of a rationally behaving, unbiased, independent entity. I listened to several of their conferences and it was very obvious their behaviour is heavily conditioned with political matters. In one of the early conferences, Tedros spent much more time and energy on praising China than on talking about the actual disease, using flowery language I cannot describe as anything other than propagandist.
With all the debacles from WHO including the most disastrous one of trusting Chinese authorities and declaring there is no human to human transmission till January, I think I can be forgiven for not taking anything WHO says seriously anymore.
WHO needs a leadership change at the least for getting back any sort of the authority they used to have.
WHO needs a leadership change at the least for getting back any sort of the authority they used to have.
This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying that nations should get prepared, one saying that specific studies haven’t yet found hard evidence for person-to-person transmission (because at that point most of the cases they’d managed to find were tied to the market). The WHO never, ever said that it can’t be transmitted, and they absolutely never said that people should do nothing about COVID-19. They were urging nations to act for months before they actually did.
I’m in the “WHO is ineffective at best” camp, but I agree with you here.
They have been conservative in their statements. I don’t recall them ever saying “it doesn’t spread person-to-person” - I do recall them saying “there is no conclusive evidence of person-to-person transmission”. At the time, given the evidence they had, that was true. From their perspective saying that it did in fact spread person-to-person and later concluding it didn’t would have been much worse; I assume they take this approach to protect their reputation of being certain before making a public statement.
The problem seems to be that lay people seem to expect WHO to be on the bleeding edge and providing comprehensive information on the latest investigation and data. That’s not what they do. They report the findings, and that’s very different.
They have been conservative in their statements. I don’t recall them ever saying “it doesn’t spread person-to-person” - I do recall them saying “there is no conclusive evidence of person-to-person transmission”. At the time, given the evidence they had, that was true. From their perspective saying that it did in fact spread person-to-person and later concluding it didn’t would have been much worse; I assume they take this approach to protect their reputation of being certain before making a public statement.
The problem seems to be that lay people seem to expect WHO to be on the bleeding edge and providing comprehensive information on the latest investigation and data. That’s not what they do. They report the findings, and that’s very different.
It seems that people expect the WHO to be clairvoyants rather than reporting evidence. It's disappointing that a scientifically minded community like HN believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Respectfully, Could you link to the documents you were referring to?
I feel like a trend I see is folks say to go out on their own to find some document that proves their point. There are several statements by the WHO on those dates, and I do not know which one you mean.
I have unfortunately seen the trend also where someone does link a source that is very lengthy and same thing. In one case, the source actually contradicted the person citing it.
I am not accusing you of that, merely it makes your argument much more credible when it is easy to see where you cited your sources.
I feel like a trend I see is folks say to go out on their own to find some document that proves their point. There are several statements by the WHO on those dates, and I do not know which one you mean.
I have unfortunately seen the trend also where someone does link a source that is very lengthy and same thing. In one case, the source actually contradicted the person citing it.
I am not accusing you of that, merely it makes your argument much more credible when it is easy to see where you cited your sources.
Wikipedia has 3 clear link from Jan 14th - the Telegraph (UK), Straits Times (Singapore) and Reuters, all conveying the quote that there was indeed human to human spreading, but at the time it seemed limited. Which is right.
The WHO further said
The WHO further said
"It is still early days, we don’t have a clear clinical picture."
Fair enough....but the grandparent comment said "Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements".
I only found two WHO statements, and they are discussing the minutes of emergency meetongs on COVID in January. Are those what they are referring to? If so, which one?
I only found two WHO statements, and they are discussing the minutes of emergency meetongs on COVID in January. Are those what they are referring to? If so, which one?
Tweet on January 14 [0].
"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China"
0. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152
"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China"
0. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-diseas...
14 January 2020 • 5:40pm
> While clear information about the mysterious virus remains hazy, the WHO said on Tuesday that transmission between humans has not been ruled out.
“From the information that we have it is possible that there is limited human-to-human transmission, potentially among families"
The WHO report findings, and on Dec 14th there was limited evidence that it was spreading from human to human. All of that is true.
14 January 2020 • 5:40pm
> While clear information about the mysterious virus remains hazy, the WHO said on Tuesday that transmission between humans has not been ruled out.
“From the information that we have it is possible that there is limited human-to-human transmission, potentially among families"
The WHO report findings, and on Dec 14th there was limited evidence that it was spreading from human to human. All of that is true.
[deleted]
> declaring there is no human to human transmission till January
It was first diagnosed in late December and the earliest the WHO became aware was 30th/31st December (depending on timezone). WHO issued a statement saying there had been limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus on Jan 14th.
It was first diagnosed in late December and the earliest the WHO became aware was 30th/31st December (depending on timezone). WHO issued a statement saying there had been limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus on Jan 14th.
See page 5 of daily WHO report for a nice graph of cases since inception: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...
COVID-19 is pretty clearly not subsiding in any meaningful way.
For US data and projection based on models for each state: https://cv19.report/
COVID-19 is pretty clearly not subsiding in any meaningful way.
For US data and projection based on models for each state: https://cv19.report/
Can anyone trust anything coming from the WHO anymore?
Pull over. License and registration please.
We have to stop this narrative that we aren't going to listen to people until they are infallible. That's not how crisis management works. Or war, football, basketball, card games...
Hedging your bets is the act of wasting resources constructively, so that if your worst case scenario happens, you aren't doomed. Faulting people for hedging their bets is going to get us all killed.
It's been happening to scientists (first climate, now everybody) for years, and 'getting us all killed' was more figurative. Now we're doing it to doctors, and people are in fact dying. Of Covid (655k so far). Of measles (140k in 2018).
Do you want a dark age? Because this is how you get a dark age.
We have to stop this narrative that we aren't going to listen to people until they are infallible. That's not how crisis management works. Or war, football, basketball, card games...
Hedging your bets is the act of wasting resources constructively, so that if your worst case scenario happens, you aren't doomed. Faulting people for hedging their bets is going to get us all killed.
It's been happening to scientists (first climate, now everybody) for years, and 'getting us all killed' was more figurative. Now we're doing it to doctors, and people are in fact dying. Of Covid (655k so far). Of measles (140k in 2018).
Do you want a dark age? Because this is how you get a dark age.
I don't agree with your statement. The matter has become so polarized that both sides are actually lying about the data.
Just a few weeks ago, the Guardian quoted a study on Nature saying that asymptomatics were more infectious than symptomatic people. Except that the paper did not state anything like that, and even warned against using the results for policy reasons.
On the same camp, a Wired article saying that "the press must watch on science" to avoid pushing untested vaccines on the population, yet omitting the fact that some side effects of the Moderna vaccine were on a dose no longer used for trials.
And on the other side, we have conspiracy theorists and "skeptics" which only quote part of the studies which benefit their agenda, such as reporting only the more optimistic bound for the infection fatality rate. Or those who only quote negative bits about vaccines.
And scientists (I'm one of them) are to blame, too. A lot of those reporting to the media gave predictions, talked in absolutes (at least speaking for my country). Few actually said "we don't know". I'm not aware of anyone saying "we got something wrong".
Just a few weeks ago, the Guardian quoted a study on Nature saying that asymptomatics were more infectious than symptomatic people. Except that the paper did not state anything like that, and even warned against using the results for policy reasons.
On the same camp, a Wired article saying that "the press must watch on science" to avoid pushing untested vaccines on the population, yet omitting the fact that some side effects of the Moderna vaccine were on a dose no longer used for trials.
And on the other side, we have conspiracy theorists and "skeptics" which only quote part of the studies which benefit their agenda, such as reporting only the more optimistic bound for the infection fatality rate. Or those who only quote negative bits about vaccines.
And scientists (I'm one of them) are to blame, too. A lot of those reporting to the media gave predictions, talked in absolutes (at least speaking for my country). Few actually said "we don't know". I'm not aware of anyone saying "we got something wrong".
So what's your solution?
Admitting there's bias leads to where, exactly? Slowing down and taking stock? That's right out of the playbook of the Other Side. It's called Teaching the Controversy, they are winning, oceans are rising and people are dying.
You cannot bring openness and flexibility to a conversation with manipulative people. To them, it's just a weakness they can exploit. Perhaps we have forgotten why scientists had 'safe spaces' before and we are learning very slowly why that was.
Admitting there's bias leads to where, exactly? Slowing down and taking stock? That's right out of the playbook of the Other Side. It's called Teaching the Controversy, they are winning, oceans are rising and people are dying.
You cannot bring openness and flexibility to a conversation with manipulative people. To them, it's just a weakness they can exploit. Perhaps we have forgotten why scientists had 'safe spaces' before and we are learning very slowly why that was.
> So what's your solution?
Telling things how they are, for a start, at least for the mainstream press. No matter if they go against one's narrative. We're not talking about politics or differing views, we're talking about scientific findings.
> You cannot bring openness and flexibility to a conversation with manipulative people.
That's how science is: open discourse. If you go for absolutes, eventually there are going to be contradictions, which will likely hamper getting important messages across. In my country, due to this, trust in scientific people is actually lowering, according to polls.
Telling things how they are, for a start, at least for the mainstream press. No matter if they go against one's narrative. We're not talking about politics or differing views, we're talking about scientific findings.
> You cannot bring openness and flexibility to a conversation with manipulative people.
That's how science is: open discourse. If you go for absolutes, eventually there are going to be contradictions, which will likely hamper getting important messages across. In my country, due to this, trust in scientific people is actually lowering, according to polls.
> That's how science is: open discourse.
It really isn't. And hasn't been. You can get burned at the stake or put under house arrest if you go back far enough.
I don't think it's an accident at all that science uses its own thick jargon instead of a simple approachable vocabulary. It filters out some of the people who will willfully misinterpret the results. Only later when things are pretty set did someone come along and explain it in layspeak.
I fear that a lot of the policy failings of late are caused in part by our attempts to democratize science.
It really isn't. And hasn't been. You can get burned at the stake or put under house arrest if you go back far enough.
I don't think it's an accident at all that science uses its own thick jargon instead of a simple approachable vocabulary. It filters out some of the people who will willfully misinterpret the results. Only later when things are pretty set did someone come along and explain it in layspeak.
I fear that a lot of the policy failings of late are caused in part by our attempts to democratize science.
> I don't think it's an accident at all that science uses its own thick jargon instead of a simple approachable vocabulary.
At least in my field of research, such views are held by few, if any. This is, IMO, an extremely bad faith argument. I think many in the field would love if the right information got out - even if incomplete, or with many unknowns.
At least that would spare us by the media getting things totally wrong and pushing disinformation on people (and that's a bipartisan problem).
At least in my field of research, such views are held by few, if any. This is, IMO, an extremely bad faith argument. I think many in the field would love if the right information got out - even if incomplete, or with many unknowns.
At least that would spare us by the media getting things totally wrong and pushing disinformation on people (and that's a bipartisan problem).
It's amazing how well brainwashing works
"People are still thinking about seasons. What we all need
to get our heads around is this is a new virus and...this one is behaving differently [...] This virus likes all weather."
I think the word "seasonal" is used here as a reference to weather rather than as a recurring time period.
Hmm, is it not a bit early to determine that?
[deleted]
They can't/won't acknowledge that Corona Virus is airborne transmission disease until its 5 month after its worldwide pandemic spread, yet they can predict that this is not seasonal pandemic, without sufficient data to support it.
[deleted]
Many (most?) places around the world have changed the way they do things so as to limit the spread of coronavirus.
These measures are currently seen as temporary. I wonder how long covid-19 needs to be a major threat before these "temporary" measures become permanent cultural / legal fixtures. E.g., updates to building codes, or conversion of executive emergency orders into permanent law.
For example, modifying building codes for retail/office space to reduce risk of person-to-person transmission via bio-aerosol.
These measures are currently seen as temporary. I wonder how long covid-19 needs to be a major threat before these "temporary" measures become permanent cultural / legal fixtures. E.g., updates to building codes, or conversion of executive emergency orders into permanent law.
For example, modifying building codes for retail/office space to reduce risk of person-to-person transmission via bio-aerosol.
It can never become permanent. Everyone will eventually be exposed to, and get, this virus. That rate of transmission is what needs to be controlled as much as possible.
artur_makly(1)
DevX101(1)
So it's seasonal then
The WHO should not be trusted - specifically on covid. I will hold them accountable to their 3,4% claim to the day the people responsible will end up in jail.
> their 3,4% claim
The fact you didn't understand a simple statistic isn't the WHO's fault.
The fact you didn't understand a simple statistic isn't the WHO's fault.
"Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected"."
That is the mother of all misleading comparisons. He, Ferguson and the other quacks must be held responsible. They are the ones who caused all this chaos.
That is the mother of all misleading comparisons. He, Ferguson and the other quacks must be held responsible. They are the ones who caused all this chaos.
The fact you don't understand a simple statistic isn't WHO's fault.
> "Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died.
REPORTED.
From that speech
> There is now a total of 90,893 reported cases of COVID-19 globally, and 3110 deaths.
3110 as a percentage of 90,893 is 3.42%
> By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected"
Why are you quoting this? How many people do you think die of seasonal flu each year?
> "Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died.
REPORTED.
From that speech
> There is now a total of 90,893 reported cases of COVID-19 globally, and 3110 deaths.
3110 as a percentage of 90,893 is 3.42%
> By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected"
Why are you quoting this? How many people do you think die of seasonal flu each year?
If you're done insulting people maybe you'll actually read and understand.
Of course the mortality rate will be higher if you only test the people that are hospitalized.... They should have known that.
Doesn't that put it on par with the flu, of which is also a coronavirus?
I don't think flu strains are a type of coronavirus but I think some of the common cold strains are.
Well, you picked a great username to make an incorrect assertion with.
Flu isn't a coronavirus.
Flu is serious, which is why we have internationally coordinated campaigns to monitor circulating strains, develop vaccines, and get vulnerable people vaccinated.
So far, covid-19 has been more severe than most flu years.
Flu is serious, which is why we have internationally coordinated campaigns to monitor circulating strains, develop vaccines, and get vulnerable people vaccinated.
So far, covid-19 has been more severe than most flu years.
We haven't even had one full season, so not calling it seasonal is premature, isn't it?
Look at the numbers:
We see that deaths are down and that illnesses are less severe (ICUs are not overwhelmed), even though daily infections are at all-time-highs in some regions. Coincidence, or perhaps due to seasonality?
We also see that the virus can not be brought under control without permanent lockdowns. As soon as you open up, the virus starts spreading again. Countries that now have the virus "under control" have had a significant amount of uncontrolled spread beforehand.
I've read several headlines along the lines of "resurgence of cases after opening up" or "second wave under way" in Europe. Then I look at the graphs and it's just not true. Cases are stable, you just have some daily variance.
Look at the numbers:
We see that deaths are down and that illnesses are less severe (ICUs are not overwhelmed), even though daily infections are at all-time-highs in some regions. Coincidence, or perhaps due to seasonality?
We also see that the virus can not be brought under control without permanent lockdowns. As soon as you open up, the virus starts spreading again. Countries that now have the virus "under control" have had a significant amount of uncontrolled spread beforehand.
I've read several headlines along the lines of "resurgence of cases after opening up" or "second wave under way" in Europe. Then I look at the graphs and it's just not true. Cases are stable, you just have some daily variance.
> We see that deaths are down
This is false. Deaths were down, but they have been climbing again for the last three weeks. Mortality is a lagging indicator to infections, so what we're seeing right now is mortality from the earliest stages of reopening.
> illnesses are less severe
This is also false. There may be some factors that are combating more severe symptoms (e.g. greater vitamin D, if that turns out to be a real effect), but the virus hasn't recently become somehow less potent.
> ICUs are not overwhelmed
False again. In the current hotspot states -- Florida, Arizona, and Texas -- ICU capacity in many areas is strained or overwhelmed as is the rest of the hospital infrastructure:
"ICU beds, ventilators in use hit new records as Arizona reports 1,357 new COVID-19 cases": https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/20...
"Florida coronavirus: 52 hospitals max out ICU capacity as cases increase": https://www.wfla.com/8-on-your-side/investigations/florida-c...
"Texas hospitals are running out of drugs, beds, ventilators and even staff": https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/14/texas-hospitals-coro...
Note that all of these articles are over a week old. The situation hasn't improved since then.
This is false. Deaths were down, but they have been climbing again for the last three weeks. Mortality is a lagging indicator to infections, so what we're seeing right now is mortality from the earliest stages of reopening.
> illnesses are less severe
This is also false. There may be some factors that are combating more severe symptoms (e.g. greater vitamin D, if that turns out to be a real effect), but the virus hasn't recently become somehow less potent.
> ICUs are not overwhelmed
False again. In the current hotspot states -- Florida, Arizona, and Texas -- ICU capacity in many areas is strained or overwhelmed as is the rest of the hospital infrastructure:
"ICU beds, ventilators in use hit new records as Arizona reports 1,357 new COVID-19 cases": https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/20...
"Florida coronavirus: 52 hospitals max out ICU capacity as cases increase": https://www.wfla.com/8-on-your-side/investigations/florida-c...
"Texas hospitals are running out of drugs, beds, ventilators and even staff": https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/14/texas-hospitals-coro...
Note that all of these articles are over a week old. The situation hasn't improved since then.
I think you are mistaken on two counts. The data is certainly not so self-evident that you can simply assert the parent is wrong.
Deaths are rising in counties that hadn't had significant exposure to covid19 before, and already the trend is heading down across the board. Deaths will be climbing in a couple of hotspots for the next 2 weeks, but total deaths in the entirety of the USA shouldn't exceed 280k.
I agree the virus hasn't become less potent, but hospitals have gotten much, much better at treatment. Remdesivir in particular makes a big difference. Spread in long term care facilities are now tracked nationwide, with terrific results. So the CFR is down by a lot, even though the virus hasn't changed.
Nobody in the US is being denied care because the ICUs are full. Yes, some hospitals are strained but this is not at all unusual. You'll find similar articles about maxed out ICUs from 2018, 2016, etc. First hit on google from jan 2018: "Hospitals Overwhelmed by Flu Patients Are Treating Them in Tents" (https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...). Moving patients to hospitals with spare capacity isn't that big of a deal. Bear in mind that Hospitals are for profit and ICU beds are extremely expensive. As a consequence hospitals target 85%+ ICU utilization throughout the year, otherwise they're losing money.
Didn't the Texas Tribune just misreport the data? https://twitter.com/VanceGinn/status/1287940050752286721
Deaths are rising in counties that hadn't had significant exposure to covid19 before, and already the trend is heading down across the board. Deaths will be climbing in a couple of hotspots for the next 2 weeks, but total deaths in the entirety of the USA shouldn't exceed 280k.
I agree the virus hasn't become less potent, but hospitals have gotten much, much better at treatment. Remdesivir in particular makes a big difference. Spread in long term care facilities are now tracked nationwide, with terrific results. So the CFR is down by a lot, even though the virus hasn't changed.
Nobody in the US is being denied care because the ICUs are full. Yes, some hospitals are strained but this is not at all unusual. You'll find similar articles about maxed out ICUs from 2018, 2016, etc. First hit on google from jan 2018: "Hospitals Overwhelmed by Flu Patients Are Treating Them in Tents" (https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...). Moving patients to hospitals with spare capacity isn't that big of a deal. Bear in mind that Hospitals are for profit and ICU beds are extremely expensive. As a consequence hospitals target 85%+ ICU utilization throughout the year, otherwise they're losing money.
Didn't the Texas Tribune just misreport the data? https://twitter.com/VanceGinn/status/1287940050752286721
>already the trend is heading down across the board
You mean the rate of increase of the increase in deaths is heading down...across the board?
You mean the rate of increase of the increase in deaths is heading down...across the board?
> There may be some factors that are combating more severe symptoms
Even if we don't have a solid treatment plan, we have more knowledge now than we did before. Triage is about saving as many people as you can by not allocating resources on those who are too far gone, or not far enough. Surely we have better bounds on those conditions now.
We probably also have fewer people suffering from side effects of treatments that have been proven ineffective. Those complications could push some patients from critical condition to dead.
Even if we don't have a solid treatment plan, we have more knowledge now than we did before. Triage is about saving as many people as you can by not allocating resources on those who are too far gone, or not far enough. Surely we have better bounds on those conditions now.
We probably also have fewer people suffering from side effects of treatments that have been proven ineffective. Those complications could push some patients from critical condition to dead.
> > illnesses are less severe
> This is also false.
I agree it's false. One reason people think it's true is that very much more testing is happening, so we're seeing people with milder symptoms getting tested positive. Before they just wouldn't have been tested.
> This is also false.
I agree it's false. One reason people think it's true is that very much more testing is happening, so we're seeing people with milder symptoms getting tested positive. Before they just wouldn't have been tested.
We've seen exponential growth curves of people dying before, it's not happening now. More tests or not, what gives?
It looks to me as though deaths in the US have been in an up trend since about July 1st (daily rate +70%), and globally since June 1st (daily rate +25%).
But the same thing is just not happening everywhere. People don't seem to accept that. You average in declining cases and deaths in NY, say, and it obscures what's happening in Texas. Same on an international scale.
But the same thing is just not happening everywhere. People don't seem to accept that. You average in declining cases and deaths in NY, say, and it obscures what's happening in Texas. Same on an international scale.
> You average in declining cases and deaths in NY, say, and it obscures what's happening in Texas. Same on an international scale.
I am not. Look at the rate of change in daily deaths in NY versus Texas. It's a big difference.
I am not. Look at the rate of change in daily deaths in NY versus Texas. It's a big difference.
> This is false. Deaths were down, but they have been climbing again for the last three weeks.
Deaths relative to cases are down...
> Mortality is a lagging indicator to infections, so what we're seeing right now is mortality from the earliest stages of reopening.
...even accounting for lag.
> There may be some factors that are combating more severe symptoms (e.g. greater vitamin D, if that turns out to be a real effect), but the virus hasn't recently become somehow less potent.
Then why are deaths down? Why is no other state repeating anything close to what New York went through?
> False again. In the current hotspot states -- Florida, Arizona, and Texas -- ICU capacity in many areas is strained or overwhelmed
Nowhere does it say "overwhelmed". At or near capacity is not "overwhelmed". It's better to ring the alarms sooner than later, of course.
Deaths relative to cases are down...
> Mortality is a lagging indicator to infections, so what we're seeing right now is mortality from the earliest stages of reopening.
...even accounting for lag.
> There may be some factors that are combating more severe symptoms (e.g. greater vitamin D, if that turns out to be a real effect), but the virus hasn't recently become somehow less potent.
Then why are deaths down? Why is no other state repeating anything close to what New York went through?
> False again. In the current hotspot states -- Florida, Arizona, and Texas -- ICU capacity in many areas is strained or overwhelmed
Nowhere does it say "overwhelmed". At or near capacity is not "overwhelmed". It's better to ring the alarms sooner than later, of course.
I've spent much less time looking at global numbers after ~April, as our focus has turned inward to making things go well locally.
As a matter of experimental practice, however, there should be sufficient information to infer whether or not to expect much seasonal variation in COVID-19 infections. The pandemic emerged at the end of winter in the northern hemisphere. It is now full-on summer. In the southern hemisphere, however, the sign is flipped. It is now full-on winter.
Unfortunately, the Covid pandemic is now a high-statistics event. There are oodles of cases in locations that span the full gamut of humidity and temperature distributions. Societal variations (policy, economics, politics, etc.) complicate the experiment, but the opportunity to make a reasonable quantitative statement on the impact of seasonal climatic variation on Covid transmission is surely there.
As a matter of experimental practice, however, there should be sufficient information to infer whether or not to expect much seasonal variation in COVID-19 infections. The pandemic emerged at the end of winter in the northern hemisphere. It is now full-on summer. In the southern hemisphere, however, the sign is flipped. It is now full-on winter.
Unfortunately, the Covid pandemic is now a high-statistics event. There are oodles of cases in locations that span the full gamut of humidity and temperature distributions. Societal variations (policy, economics, politics, etc.) complicate the experiment, but the opportunity to make a reasonable quantitative statement on the impact of seasonal climatic variation on Covid transmission is surely there.
> In the southern hemisphere, however, the sign is flipped. It is now full-on winter.
There isn't really a "full-on winter" in the southern hemisphere except in the southernmost parts of Chile/Argentina/Australia or in New Zealand. That makes it difficult to compare.
There isn't really a "full-on winter" in the southern hemisphere except in the southernmost parts of Chile/Argentina/Australia or in New Zealand. That makes it difficult to compare.
South Africa is reporting ~10,000 cases/day.Chile is reporting thousands of cases a day.
The cross-society systematic uncertainties are the major challenge, as every country and culture is attacking this thing differently (and NZ is crushing it). If there is a strong seasonal effect, it should be apparent throughout global datasets, both from a latitude-dependent dynamic in the northern hemisphere and variation with opposite sign for locations with equal and opposite latitude.
It is my continued guess that meaningful bounds on any seasonal effect are not inaccessable.
From US data alone, it is clear that R_0 is not impacted by a factor of ~2-5 by summertime climate. We're still losing.
The cross-society systematic uncertainties are the major challenge, as every country and culture is attacking this thing differently (and NZ is crushing it). If there is a strong seasonal effect, it should be apparent throughout global datasets, both from a latitude-dependent dynamic in the northern hemisphere and variation with opposite sign for locations with equal and opposite latitude.
It is my continued guess that meaningful bounds on any seasonal effect are not inaccessable.
From US data alone, it is clear that R_0 is not impacted by a factor of ~2-5 by summertime climate. We're still losing.
> We also see that the virus can not be brought under control without permanent lockdowns. As soon as you open up, the virus starts spreading again. Countries that now have the virus "under control" have had a significant amount of uncontrolled spread beforehand.
I think this is the point. They are not saying it could get worse in winter months, they are saying that summer is not a "low season" and that it will spread just fine without controls. The data supports that.
I think this is the point. They are not saying it could get worse in winter months, they are saying that summer is not a "low season" and that it will spread just fine without controls. The data supports that.
How do we know that other seasonal viruses don't also "spread fine" during summer, except that the illness is less severe?
Because we don't do anything special in the summer and there is very little flu compared with "flu season." Here is data, just select the US: https://apps.who.int/flumart/Default?ReportNo=1
edit: In fact, take a look at Brazil or India, places that are hot year round. They have very few instances of the flu no matter the time of year. This shows that it doesn't spread much in warm weather. We already know that covid-19 does spread in warm weather.
edit: In fact, take a look at Brazil or India, places that are hot year round. They have very few instances of the flu no matter the time of year. This shows that it doesn't spread much in warm weather. We already know that covid-19 does spread in warm weather.
> In fact, take a look at Brazil or India, places that are hot year round. They have very few instances of the flu no matter the time of year. This shows that it doesn't spread much in warm weather.
I would argue that it doesn't show that. Nobody is testing for Influenza if it's just a "mild" case. What is being tracked is deaths from pneumonia that are attributed to Influenza.
If you look at the mortality in India or Brazil, it's way lower than in countries further from the equator. You also would expect testing capacity to be lower, so there's likely more unknown cases there.
I would argue that it doesn't show that. Nobody is testing for Influenza if it's just a "mild" case. What is being tracked is deaths from pneumonia that are attributed to Influenza.
If you look at the mortality in India or Brazil, it's way lower than in countries further from the equator. You also would expect testing capacity to be lower, so there's likely more unknown cases there.
Because the elderly experience it several regardless, and so would continue to experience a year round "cold and flu season". Or do you mean the viruses properties change?
I've wondered about the deaths being down and whether or not all the low hanging easy to pick off fruit from the virus' perspective is eaten up. The virus will then work its way through a healthier populace and not result in so many deaths.
Do all pandemics work that way more or less?
Do all pandemics work that way more or less?
It's hard to have this conversation with people. I believe that the morbidity rate is lower than we have estimated. Sure, we probably have a lot of people who have had the virus and didn't develop symptoms. But we are still on our way to a million dead, so that hardly matters.
The other aspect the lackadaisical are ignoring is that the morbidity rate is only where it is because the number of critical patients is hovering around the carrying capacity of our medical infrastructure. More cases means a dog-leg in deaths because they will have to give up on people to save others. There will be no more heroic actions to save mom or dad once you can fill the ICU entirely with people with far better prognoses. Mom isn't going into the ICU because it's already full of athletes and people under 30. She's going on morphine and you can say goodbye over a phone.
The other aspect the lackadaisical are ignoring is that the morbidity rate is only where it is because the number of critical patients is hovering around the carrying capacity of our medical infrastructure. More cases means a dog-leg in deaths because they will have to give up on people to save others. There will be no more heroic actions to save mom or dad once you can fill the ICU entirely with people with far better prognoses. Mom isn't going into the ICU because it's already full of athletes and people under 30. She's going on morphine and you can say goodbye over a phone.
I would assume so, but that alone doesn't explain why regions that haven't been exposed strongly until summer fare so much better than regions exposed earlier.
Just a guess, but maybe better isolation of the the most vulnerable (so the people getting sick now are younger), and more knowledge about how to treat those who end up hospitalized.
This is premature at best and a potentially misleading statement by the WHO. Perhaps things haven't improved as much during the summer as we'd like, but seasonality is difficult to disaggregate from non-pharmaceutical countermeasures being lifted as we moved into warmer, sunnier weather in the northern hemisphere.
Based on everything we know about infectious disease transmission and illness severity in general, infection rate indicators and case severity are likely to worsen throughout fall and become particularly nasty during the depths of winter. Seasonal reduction in sunlight exposure suppresses immunity (it's not just an issue of vitamin-D), bacteria and mold exposure upticks dramatically as cool, damp days predominate in much of the northern hemisphere.
Air pollution increases as old weather reduces dispersal rates and people burn more fuel to heat their homes while driving more to avoid trudging through rain and snow in the gloom. And if they're not driving, then they're using public transport, and as we know, buses and trains are petri dishes. Some other infectious diseases are likely to play well with SARS2, as is observed with a variety of bacterial infections and common cold associated coronaviruses.
On top of all this, populations are much more likely to huddle together indoors, often in poorly ventilated spaces which allows bioaerosols to concentrate, making a physical distancing impractical for many and multiplying viral exposure load. This can be mitigated by taking steps to upgrade ventilation, adding air cleaning and sterilization countermeasures, and at an individual level, wearing the best available masks and sealed eye protection while indoors with people outside of your quarantine bubble.
Let's hope for the best while preparing for the worst.
Based on everything we know about infectious disease transmission and illness severity in general, infection rate indicators and case severity are likely to worsen throughout fall and become particularly nasty during the depths of winter. Seasonal reduction in sunlight exposure suppresses immunity (it's not just an issue of vitamin-D), bacteria and mold exposure upticks dramatically as cool, damp days predominate in much of the northern hemisphere.
Air pollution increases as old weather reduces dispersal rates and people burn more fuel to heat their homes while driving more to avoid trudging through rain and snow in the gloom. And if they're not driving, then they're using public transport, and as we know, buses and trains are petri dishes. Some other infectious diseases are likely to play well with SARS2, as is observed with a variety of bacterial infections and common cold associated coronaviruses.
On top of all this, populations are much more likely to huddle together indoors, often in poorly ventilated spaces which allows bioaerosols to concentrate, making a physical distancing impractical for many and multiplying viral exposure load. This can be mitigated by taking steps to upgrade ventilation, adding air cleaning and sterilization countermeasures, and at an individual level, wearing the best available masks and sealed eye protection while indoors with people outside of your quarantine bubble.
Let's hope for the best while preparing for the worst.
This just means that the R0 is higher during the winter months, immunity will still accumulate to the point where the virus will be contained to small clusters here and there.
Yes, it's an overview of the factors that will likely drive R0 to increase during winter months. R0 is highly context dependant variable, it is not a constant. What evidence are you drawing upon to suggest that immunity will have accumulated by then enough to limit outbreaks to small containable clusters?
Disclaimer: I am not an expert. I believe in science, and its conclusions. All I wanted to know is if there's enough data points to plot a long-term trend.