NYC wont let its guards wear masks.
Meanwhile...
New York corrections officers not allowed to wear masks
https://www.mytwintiers.com/health/...rrections-officers-not-allowed-to-wear-masks/
COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
- Status
NYC wont let its guards wear masks.
Meanwhile...
New York corrections officers not allowed to wear masks
https://www.mytwintiers.com/health/...rrections-officers-not-allowed-to-wear-masks/
My revised best guess credible scenario with caveats and uncertainties - this is nowhere near the 2-3MM deaths in the US scenarios some have produced, but it's not "just the flu" either. Take this with a large grain of salt, as I'm certainly not an epidemiologist.
Wuhan had a 0.5% infection rate according to the Chinese with maybe 50K cases, but I don't think anyone trusts the Chinese numbers, which I think are 10X greater as there's no way only 0.5% were infected. On the other hand, I've also never felt that the 50-70% infection rates for the population were realistic (those feed the 2-3MM deaths per year numbers).
However, I do think we need to at least consider the possibility that what was observed on the Diamond Princess could be a credible worst case, especially for densely populated areas that do not do a good job of testing, tracking, quarantining (of positives and their contacts), which can let the infection take off exponentially, as we've seen almost everywhere, at least for awhile, overwhelming health care systems, as we saw in Northern Italy and which we're at risk of in NYC.
The DP was a perfect "floating virus transmission laboratory" with 3711 people, who were exposed to the virus for 14 days (before the quarantine) in a location as densely populated as NYC with conditions ripe for transmission, given communal activities and meals and close quarters. About 712 people tested positive (19%) and of those about half had symptoms and half did not and we have no idea how many of the rest were infected but tested negative, due to low virus levels not detectable by the test - we'd need to test all of them via the serological antibody assay to know for sure (can't believe that hasn't been done yet). And of those 705, 9 died for a case fatality rate of 1.3%, while 37 (5.2%) required intensive care.
To me the 19% infection rate is the absolute worst case scenario, practically speaking, for larger populations (there could always be more for isolated case, like we might be seeing in nursing homes and individual families), assuming we did no interventions. So, for example if 20% of the US were infected and 1.3% died, we'd have about 830K deaths (vs 35K flu deaths/year in the US). Of course, 20% of the US is pretty unlikely due to much lower overall density but it's possible infection rates could reach 5-10% in some cities, like NYC and especially Manhattan with the highest population density in the US and heavy reliance on mass transit, plus a very high rate of people going in and out of the area.
Even at just 5% infected (and we're at 0.3% in NYC now, but projected to reach at least 300K infections or more which would be 3.3% vs 9MM in NYC and that's with some social distancing) and if we had a 1.3% mortality rate, that's 5900 deaths and at 5.2% in the ICU that's 23,600 ICU cases. And if we extrapolated those numbers over the ~80% of the US that's considered urban, then 5% would be 13MM infections and at a 1.3% mortality rate that would be 170K deaths and 4X that many ICU cases, assuming no interventions.
Having said that, all of the people who died on the DP were over 65 and the cruise was older than the US on average, so some have done calculations suggesting the "true" DP death rate would be more like 0.7% which is about half of the 1.3% from the DP (see the 2nd link, which was published when only 6 had died, but that eventually became 9, so their 0.5% adjusted mortality becomes 0.7%). Even at half the numbers I just calculated above (using a 0.7% mortality rate), that would be 85K deaths and 340K ICU cases in the 80% of the US which is urban if we implemented few interventions, both of which are far in excess of an annual flu year.
We'd need a case rate of about 1-2% to bring the CV2 deaths down near the annual flu and that simply doesn't seem possible to achieve in densely populated areas (and hotspots outside of urban areas) without significant interventions (testing, tracing/quarantining, social distancing, no crowds, closures, etc.), like we're seeing now. Also, keep in mind that the numbers in this scenario are totals for a year or so, comparing to the flu - the other issue with this virus is the very sharp peaks we've seen almost everywhere, which can potentially overwhelm anyone's health care system, which is another reason for "flattening the curve" via interventions.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm?s_cid=mm6912e3_w
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-outbreak-diamond-princess-cruise-ship-death-rate
And that's why most experts feel we need to intervene with testing, tracking, quarantining and social distancing especially in our cities, as we don't want to "hope" for spring reducing transmissions (which I think it will, but we don't know or by how much). How long we have to do this for is obviously the big question. My guess is 6 more weeks, since we got such a horribly late start on our interventions, especially on testing - we could have easily followed South Korea's model and peaked at 45K infections and be on the decline right now, but we didn't follow their playbook. The other wild card is if any of the clinical trials with repurposed older drugs help us, which is unlikely, from everything I've read (HCQ did not work in China much).
And the last, but best wild card was just announced today, as NY got FDA approval in record time (one place Trump/Hahn deserve full credit for temporarily suspending many regs on new treatments) to start testing antibody-laden blood plasma collected from recovered infected patients with antibodies to the virus in very sick patients and eventually as possible preventative for elderly/high risk people and health care workers. It's low tech and cheap, but it should work to at least some extent and we should know in a few weeks (see the link).
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...social-distancing.191275/page-34#post-4470810
Last edited:
And by one projected model, NY wont reach its peak number of hospitalizations until April 21st. Any questions from anyone regarding the severity of this virus? Anyone still want to call it just the flu?
Brace yourselves, next two weeks might be the worse ...........
However, we really should stop poo-pooing the Flu. The Flu kills 650,000 people every year. As bad as it has been, and as bad as we project it to be, this virus still has ways to go to get to Flu "kill level".
We had someone at work show up after his child's mother tested positive... This was well after HR had communicated common sense controls to prevent anyone suspected of being exposed from being at work. In fact the company gave paid 2 week leave to a couple others out of caution. That wasn't enough to keep this guy from showing up and potentially exposing others. I don't think the overall intelligence and discipline in our society can keep this under wraps. Too many people lack the most basic common sense and thoughtfullness.
‘This.
And as anybody with an ounce of intelligence would know, Easter gatherings are not happening
NYC wont let its guards wear masks.
Meanwhile...
New York corrections officers not allowed to wear masks
https://www.mytwintiers.com/health/...rrections-officers-not-allowed-to-wear-masks/
Maybe they should claim to be part of Antifa and wear black masks, LOL.
Seriously, what is the cultural issue with the West not using masks? Too stigmatizing? TBH, I was going to use a mask to go out & about on errands but the fam rolled their eyes and shamed me from doing so. Granted, it wasn't the CDC-approved medical mask, but I figured it would at least help to reduce my exposure as well as reduce any output from me if I had the cooties. Maybe it's not cultural but just bad guidance from CDC & other gov health centers.
Yeah it's unreal. I went to the pharmacy yesterday. There are signs everywhere and obnoxiously clear blue lines on the floor of where to stand. A guy came in and was totally surprised by all this and walked right next to and almost into the woman behind me. She have him a death stare and I even asked him if he's been watching the news.
We still need to change people's attitudes towards this epidemic. We've become such an instant gratification, "I Want It Now" society, that people are balking at these restrictions which, in my mind, are not dire in any sense of the word. I'm having the problem with my better half: when we went late night Tuesday to the grocery store, we had a list of what we needed. But she wanted to "shop". We almost had a major fight in the middle of the store as she wanted to go through items on the shelves and in the display cases. I wanted to scream: "What part of epidemic don't you get?" Then last night she starts talking about going to Callandra's or Fairway this morning to get a baguette of bread for the boys. I'm like: "Are you serious?" I have 2 friends both with elderly parents who I've told to provide them what they need, but limit visits as much as possible. I even had to explain to one of them the whole concept of being an asymptomatic carrier.
Cognitive dissonance. "Hey it looks bad out there, those people should stay home" paired with "I'm healthy, there's no way I could get it, so f it, I'm going to work because I can save my leave or vacation just in case"
Hopefully this can help out our state somewhat
https://www.insidernj.com/murphy-announces-new-jersey-received-major-disaster-declaration/
https://www.insidernj.com/murphy-announces-new-jersey-received-major-disaster-declaration/
Third week of April seems like a reasonable expectation for the peak. That's about 3-4 weeks after the most strict stay-at-home regulations went into effect, and the disease course is often several weeks long. The big unknown is, how successful are those restrictions going to be? Will cases decrease a lot after that or will hospitals remain near or over capacity for a long time? I saw a website that tracks compliance (of stay-at-home requirements) by tracking cellphone movements (link below). Most areas seem to have about a 40% reduction in "movement" which probably means people commuting to work, running errands, etc. Is that going to be enough? Liquor stores are still open as are many other businesses that push the envelope in terms of being "essential".
https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard
Unfortunately, people will only realize how bad it is when it hits "home".
Somewhat technical description from an er doctor in louisiana - talks about what he is seeing in covid patients, how they are treating them, outcomes, etc. There is a post on page 2 or 3 where another doctor has explained some of the jargon used.
https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3102444/1
https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3102444/1
The calls for 70% of the population to get infected never made much sense. As #'s has pointed out a number of times, less than 20% got it on the cruises. Would point to 10% potentially getting it in very densely populated areas like NYC and less than 5% getting it everywhere else.
The issue IMO has always been preparing the hospitals. Not just for those with the virus but all the other occurrences where people may need medical care.
Lots of people are harping on the "rules" to get tested like needing to have symptoms. The problem is not the rules but the lack of tests available. I do believe that if we had 335M test kits, we would test everyone but we dont. Until then (and number of test is increaing), we need to pick who to give the test to and that excludes many of us that would like to be tested because we "think" we may have been infected.
One thing I do wonder. Is there a way to discern from the test data how much of the daily positives is from increased (and increasing) testing and how much is from actual transmission growth? It seems possible to pick any ratio of the two for any given day meaning that transmission growth could be much better or much worse then shown on the charts. Can the data scientist tell the difference?
One thing I do wonder. Is there a way to discern from the test data how much of the daily positives is from increased (and increasing) testing and how much is from actual transmission growth? It seems possible to pick any ratio of the two for any given day meaning that transmission growth could be much better or much worse then shown on the charts. Can the data scientist tell the difference?
You can still get a sense of how much is from growth by the number of new people getting tested who are symptomatic. It’s not an exact science, but certainly enough to make extrapolations.
If you get 10 people coming in with fevers on 3/1, 100 on 3/10 and then 1000 on 3/20, you know it’s spreading.
If you get 10 people coming in with fevers on 3/1, 100 on 3/10 and then 1000 on 3/20, you know it’s spreading.
One problem with that is the people on the cruise ships were eventually quarantined. If that had not been done the total infection rate would have been far higher than 20%.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think 40, 50 or 60% of the population could eventually be infected unless an effective vaccine is developed. Now that we've instituted control measures the rate of spread will be slowed but over a period of a year or two, I would think the percentages of total infection will be a lot higher than 10%. It's extremely unlikely this will be stamped out completely like SARS was, so once restrictions are relaxed cases will start to climb again. It will be a long battle and probably various quarantine measures will need to be employed on and off in various places. We can just hope that there are a lot of truly minor/asymptomatic cases out there. If that is true, it will mean the IFR is much less than the CFR, which at a minimum seems to be hovering at about 1.4% or higher. Even in South Korea right now the CFR estimate is 1.4% and that's really high for a very communicable viral disease.
DeBlasio was saying last night thst over 50% of Nyc residents will be infected...thats bullshit..stop frightening the public Mr Mayor
A) If I read the 2nd section correctly.. could it be said that the more flu-shots a person has gotten could make things WORSE for them re: CoVid-19?
B) Could this be a reason why China and other places where flu-shots might be scarce might do better in the long run than more developed nations?
C) could this "feature" of this virus be a sign that it was engineered/created to target the elderly with loads of antibodies?
Last edited:
It's not bad guidance at all.... A mask can give one a false sense of security... Safer to practice social distancing....
Maybe if you have highly detailed data about exactly who is being tested and where (and under what conditions) you could make some educated guesses, but the data that is available publicly is not sufficient in my opinion.
Also remember the lag issue - people don't usually start showing symptoms for at least 5 days and in most areas people with minor symptoms are not being tested. Then there's another 5-10 day lag till people get sick enough to be admitted to a hospital. Unless there is an area where they are truly sampling randomly in a community (and maybe NYC is doing this? not sure), testing results are going to be driven by people getting quite sick and those numbers probably wouldn't start showing a decrease for at least 10-15 days after they stay at home rules went into effect. And that in turn depends on how well people are actually social-distancing.
Influenza is a completely different virus so I'm not sure why previous flu shots would have any impact.
I think the other diseases you mentioned were situations where, for example, someone got infected with one strain of dengue and then later another strain. Then there was potential for the second infection to be more severe because of "priming" of the immune system.
Now, there are 2 reasons why this could be scary - when they were developing vaccines for the original SARS virus, they found a similar outcome in animal tests. Animals were injected with the vaccine, which led to the seemingly desirable outcome of antibody production. But then when they were exposed to the actual SARS virus they had severe immune reactions and all or most died. Since SARS is a very similar creature to the current coronavirus, that is a big concern.
Another concern is that many common colds are due to other coronaviruses and most of us have been exposed to those multiple times. So our immune systems could potentially over-react due to previous exposures to those viruses. So maybe people who've had more coronavirus colds would be more likely to have a bad outcome.
found this and more about masks...
Masks
Q. I’ve heard that face masks can help protect against coronavirus because they prevent you from touching your face. Is this true?
A. There is limited data to suggest that face masks can help protect against the coronavirus because they prevent you from touching your face.
Physical barriers, such as surgical or cloth masks, are not a “better than nothing” option for being out in public. “With surgical masks,” says Dr. Eli Perencevich, professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa’s College of Medicine, “people don’t wear them correctly.” Perencevich notes that people “drop it below their nose, or drop it below when [they] eat. And then you’re just contaminating your face.”
Surgical masks are designed to be single-use. For those not used to wearing these or disposing of them properly, there is a big risk of auto-contamination (you touch an infected surface, and then touch the front of your mask, leaving only a thin barrier between your mouth and nose and the virus). In the event that you have some of these already and you share a home with someone, we recommend you hold onto them, should anyone in your household become infected. They’re intended to protect the healthy from the sick.
—Christina Colizza, research editor
Q. I am sick or caring for a sick person, but I can’t find surgical or respirator masks anywhere. Are there DIY options? What should I be doing to protect the people who live with me?
A. First things first: Unless you’re sick and hoping to not infect others, you don’t need a face mask. An N95 respirator could protect you from a respiratory virus if worn correctly, but as you’ve stated, they’re out of stock. Surgical masks provide at best a latex barrier and at worst a false sense of security that could lead to your getting infected. The best things you can do as a caretaker are to isolate the sick person, practice good hand hygiene, and keep your distance when possible.
According to Dr. Saskia Popescu, a hospital epidemiologist and infection preventionist, a surgical mask, or a makeshift mask like a bandana, won’t be all that useful for a caretaker, because they tend to offer a false sense of security that can result in auto-contamination. “What I see often is people using makeshift masks and they don’t need to be wearing them, and then not washing their hands and touching their eyes all the time and then their mouth,” says Popescu. Also, people will often take off these masks, surgical or DIY, from the front, rather than by the strings, and then improperly dispose of them.
—Christina Colizza, research editor
Q. What about cloth masks, like these ones available on Amazon? Are these a good thing to wear since all the surgical masks and N95s are gone?
A: If you’re confused about masks, you’re not alone. There’s been a ton of conflicting information published by federal agencies, major public health institutions, individual experts, and news outlets over the past few weeks. On top of that, the term “mask” has been used as a catch-all for vastly different things: surgical masks, NIOSH-approved N95 respirators, reusable cloth masks, and even ski masks, balaclavas, or DIY barriers. Reusable cloth options function similarly to surgical masks: They do not form an airtight seal and are of limited help to protect a healthy person from contracting a respiratory virus.
The US surgeon general and epidemiologists sent a somewhat garbled message indicating that people did not need to buy or wear surgical masks or N95 masks because a) healthcare workers need them more than everyday citizens do, and b) people without highly specialized training on mask use might contaminate themselves or not dispose of masks properly. On March 10, the CDC changed its guidance for healthcare professionals to say that surgical masks offer an “acceptable alternative” to N95 respirator masks when treating patients with known or suspected coronavirus. (The American Nurses Association quickly responded with a letter to Congress suggesting that the CDC’s decision was based on scarcity, not science.) Later, other epidemiologists published op-eds arguing that masks are good, and that everyday people should wear them, not only if they are sick and hoping to reduce the spread of their own germs to others.
The inherent issue is that many people who have or will develop COVID-19 are asymptomatic. Those unknowingly sick people could be spreading the virus. Thus, shouldn’t everyone be wearing masks, just in case?
There is not yet a clear answer. The one thing we do know for sure: Healthcare workers are facing a critical shortage of personal protective equipment, including surgical and N95 masks.
—Christina Colizza, research editor
Q. I’ve heard that other countries recommend using face masks far more readily than the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does. Is this true?
A. The World Health Organization represents 194 different countries from six different regions and offers the same guidelines for mask usage that CDC offers here in the US. Those guidelines are:
- Wear a mask if you are coughing and sneezing.
- If you are healthy and not a member of the medical profession, you need to wear a mask only if you are caring for someone who is sick.
- Masks are effective only when used with proper hand-cleaning.
- Effective use of face masks requires the wearer to follow proper use and disposal procedures.
Hmmm.. so, our attempts for a SARS vaccine resulted in a similar body-response to what we are seeing with this? Could CoVid-19 have resulted in an effort to create a vaccine against the common cold?
I think there is also a difference between initial infections and total infections over an extended period of time.
Sure it’s possible that 50% of people may become infected over a 3-year period while the virus spreads throughout the world and slingshots back for a 2nd and 3rd wave and then eventually peters out because of herd immunity.
That is different than saying 70% will become infected over the next several months and the world is coming to an end.
Sure it’s possible that 50% of people may become infected over a 3-year period while the virus spreads throughout the world and slingshots back for a 2nd and 3rd wave and then eventually peters out because of herd immunity.
That is different than saying 70% will become infected over the next several months and the world is coming to an end.
Last edited:
Notes from today's presser by Cuomo...
- 40K max projection on ventilators (not sure they'll get to that, but that's what the worst case models show); have 15K now (30K with splitting)
- Expects peak numbers in hospitals in 14-21 days (and remember, some of that is cumulative as it takes a long time for many to recover (or die - 3-5 weeks from symptoms to death)
- approved ventilator tech for splitting – could double capacity (not ideal); converting a few thousand anesthesia machines to ventilators
- 11-21 days on vent for CV2 vs. 3-4 days typically; some on 20-30 days – increases bad outcomes
- Enough PPE for the next week or so – isolated issues are due to distribution in NYC
- NY gets $5BB from $2T package and only for CV expenses (nothing for lost revenue) vs. $15BB need – he’s very disappointed, but is moving ahead as best he can
- 18K tests done in NY on 3/25/7K in NYC, 122K to date/51K in NYC – 1 test per 160 people – 25% of all testing in the US.
- Says they’re not limited in testing currently and will continue to test as much as they can (despite CDC guidance to only test severe cases) to help ID positives to isolate them/contacts.
- Deaths increasing: 385 total from 285 on Tuesday (100 in one day)
- 37K total cases in NY/21K in NYC (6K in Westchester); 6448 new cases in NY/3537 new in NYC/1253 new in WC
- Daily NY new cases only increased from about 4K to 6K over the past 4 days (less than before); Looking most at rate of increase in cases leveling off and decreasing, not number of cases
- Of 37K positives, 5327 currently hospitalized/1280 in ICU (w/ventilators)/1500 discharged
- 4400 in NJ, 3100 in CA, 2500 in WA, Louisiana growing fast (1700)
- Talked about how important it is to stick to the facts and that deception is the worst thing
- He always does some philosophizing at the end of these and he said he truly believes people will be better people and citizens for having gone through this (especially young people), even if they don't recognize it now and he feels strongly that we'll get through this together, despite the loss and pain. It's nice to hear his reassurances and empathy, but also his optimism despite it all.
- Thanked Fauci, as he calls him regularly and Fauci is always helpful. For those who don't know, Fauci convinced Chris Cuomo (CNN - gov's brother) to stop going home and taking care of their mom, since he's at too high of a risk (was a touching moment on CNN).
Last edited:
Wishing you and your family the best, hope you all recover soon.
NickKnight 1 said:
glad you are better.. it could be you have survived getting CoVid-19.. or you had something else. makes me wonder how many stories like this are out there...
NYC wont let its guards wear masks.
Meanwhile...
New York corrections officers not allowed to wear masks
https://www.mytwintiers.com/health/...rrections-officers-not-allowed-to-wear-masks/
Armed Forces should contain all of NYC
No one in, no one out, aside from essential people
Thought it looked like curve was flattening and then I look today and all of a sudden yesterday’s new case total increased.
22 23 24 seemed to flatten and then 25 ticks up.
maybe I should wait a few days before getting too excited.
it is obvious 21 was a bad data point and probably needs to be smoothed with 22
22 23 24 seemed to flatten and then 25 ticks up.
maybe I should wait a few days before getting too excited.
it is obvious 21 was a bad data point and probably needs to be smoothed with 22
It will be worse in NY...NJ to follow soon thereafter. I can't see it any other way.
- Status
Similar threads
