Working From Home - Impacts of Coronavirus

[james_s]

That's the inherent problem with restrictions. When they work, it creates the impression that they were not needed. People don't think about the fact that it's because of the restrictions that there is not a high infection rate.

[Nusa]

There may be no second wave yet, but I'd say it's too early to say there won't be one before the year is over.

[EEVblog]

That's the inherent problem with restrictions. When they work, it creates the impression that they were not needed. People don't think about the fact that it's because of the restrictions that there is not a high infection rate.

Sure, but how much? How much is due to the lockdown, and how much was simple hygiene, awareness, and staying home when you are sick?
It would be be incredibly foolish (indeed, demonstrably wrong) to say there is no contribution from the later things.
It's easy and logical to assume that the lock down is the thing that did all the wonders, but where is the direct A/B comparison data to actually prove it? (and no, don't compare different countries)

[EEVblog]

There may be no second wave yet, but I'd say it's too early to say there won't be one before the year is over.

I expect a "2nd wave" here in Australia, but I'd be very surprised if it's not greatly reduced amplitude.
Heck, our numbers are already so low that all it takes is one location like a nursing home and one careless worker there to single handedly double or triple our national numbers.

[Syntax Error]

Here in the UK, it's a bit of a war zone, and I would not wish this on our Aussie cousins. So ease back slowly. Up here we're heading into summer, but you guys are approaching flu season? Talk of a second wave kind of prompted me to think of this classic Aussie movie, The Last Wave https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Wave

[cdev]

Just a heads up, the drug industry here is gearing up for a "once in a lifetime business opportunity" like never before.

And they fully intend to make a killing.

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/13/big-pharma-drug-pricing-coronavirus-profits/


https://greenworld.org.uk/article/patented-covid-19-vaccine-could-price-out-millions

[james_s]

Sure, but how much? How much is due to the lockdown, and how much was simple hygiene, awareness, and staying home when you are sick?
It would be be incredibly foolish (indeed, demonstrably wrong) to say there is no contribution from the later things.
It's easy and logical to assume that the lock down is the thing that did all the wonders, but where is the direct A/B comparison data to actually prove it? (and no, don't compare different countries)

Absolutely, the same applies to all of those things, how do you really know which action contributed by how much? It stands to reason that if someone is isolated then they will not contract a virus or spread it to someone else, but how much do less drastic methods help? It's very difficult to know, it's not like we can really have a large control group that does nothing, and various groups that try different methods.

No matter what we do to slow the spread, if it works, it will appear to many that it was not necessary. I certainly don't have all the answers, I thought the whole thing was hype until I saw the dramatically increasing infection numbers.

[EEVblog]

Sure, but how much? How much is due to the lockdown, and how much was simple hygiene, awareness, and staying home when you are sick?
It would be be incredibly foolish (indeed, demonstrably wrong) to say there is no contribution from the later things.
It's easy and logical to assume that the lock down is the thing that did all the wonders, but where is the direct A/B comparison data to actually prove it? (and no, don't compare different countries)

Absolutely, the same applies to all of those things, how do you really know which action contributed by how much? It stands to reason that if someone is isolated then they will not contract a virus or spread it to someone else, but how much do less drastic methods help? It's very difficult to know, it's not like we can really have a large control group that does nothing, and various groups that try different methods.
No matter what we do to slow the spread, if it works, it will appear to many that it was not necessary. I certainly don't have all the answers, I thought the whole thing was hype until I saw the dramatically increasing infection numbers.

Also let's not forget that something like >40% of the population were not isolated and in lockdown (I've seen numbers up to 50%). Everyone might feel like the entire country/city is in lockdown and no one is going out, but there are massive amounts of "essential" workers who's lives didn't change apart from increased hygiene and "social distancing".
It's a shame we may never have real concrete numbers on this because I fear that governments will do lock downs again at the drop of a hat, and if that's based on incomplete or just assumed data, then that's bad.

[cdev]

Culture and also living density make a lot of difference. People in NYC live in tiny places. They travel by public transport where lots of people are crammed together. You are lucky if you can find a seat. Lots and lots of people all moving very fast. Workplaces are almost always crowded there.  If you want quiet you either have to get a meeting room to talk, or leave, go outside. If youre lucky there is some open space... on the roof.

So basically in places like NYC, when people are not under lockdown, "social distancing" is literally impossible. Its impossible to go about your daily business without getting physically close to people because you get crammed next to people everywhere. For example, when you wait to cross the street. A lot of the time in NYC when I want to get somewhere fast, and I am not going that far, say from a subway stop to whatever building I a going to, I will step off the curb and walk in the street instead of on the sidewalk against the traffic, so I can see it. Its faster because the people clog the sidewalk. I havent been to NYC in over three months. I havent been there since before this whole thing started.

I'm not eager to go either. I really love NYC and previous to this still felt more at home there then I do in the town I live in now.

But I sure am glad I dont live there now. Especially people who are on their own and/or poor. Not being able to work and still having to pay that huge rent. It must be absolutely horrible. I bet you that whenever this settles down a lot of people who are struggling now will opt to, or in many cases be forced to move somewhere else.

Its hard to say what will happen. As far as NYC they had absolutely no choice but to do something like this. Or it would have been much much worse. They are doing the bare minimum now that they can. There is not much you can do besides keep people indoors and away from one another when you have 10 million people.

[cdev]

We wont know until next flu season (the winter) if there is a second wave here in the Northwern hemisphere. There is the herald wave and then the real wave. The term is borrowed from tsunamis.

For some example usage and accounts of how it works, go to PubMed

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22herald%20wave%22

Also, this looks interesting


A deterministic model for influenza infection with multiple strains and antigenic drift.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23701386

We describe a multiple strain Susceptible Infected Recovered deterministic model for the spread of an influenza subtype within a population. The model incorporates appearance of new strains due to antigenic drift, and partial immunity to reinfection with related circulating strains. It also includes optional seasonal forcing of the transmission rate of the virus, which allows for comparison between temperate zones and the tropics. Our model is capable of reproducing observed qualitative patterns such as the overall annual outbreaks in the temperate region, a reduced magnitude and an increased frequency of outbreaks in the tropics, and the herald wave phenomenon. Our approach to modelling antigenic drift is novel and further modifications of this model may help improve the understanding of complex influenza dynamics.

AMS Subject Classification: 92D30; 92D15

Keywords: influenza, antigenic drift, cross-immunity, multiple strains, seasonality

[EEVblog]

Culture and also living density make a lot of difference. People in NYC live in tiny places. They travel by public transport where lots of people are crammed together. You are lucky if you can find a seat. Lots and lots of people all moving very fast. Workplaces are almost always crowded there.  If you want quiet you either have to get a meeting room to talk, or leave, go outside. If youre lucky there is some open space... on the roof. So basically in places like NYC, when people are not under lockdown, "social distancing" is literally impossible. Its impossible to go about your daily business without getting physically close to people because you get crammed next to people everywhere. For example, when you wait to cross the street. A lot of the time in NYC when I want to get somewhere fast, and I am not going that far, say from a subway stop to whatever building I a going to, I will step off the curb and walk in the street instead of on the sidewalk against the traffic, so I can see it. Its faster because the people clog the sidewalk.

It's nuts compared to Sydney.
1.6M people live in Manhatten (59sqkm), compared to Sydney that isn't even on the list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density
But compared to say Inner Western Sydney that has 200,000 for 35sqkm, so scaling that to match Manhatten would be 337,000, or around 1/5th the population density here in our of our most densely populated parts of Sydney.
https://profile.id.com.au/inner-west/about

[DrG]

Sure, but how much? How much is due to the lockdown, and how much was simple hygiene, awareness, and staying home when you are sick?
It would be be incredibly foolish (indeed, demonstrably wrong) to say there is no contribution from the later things.
It's easy and logical to assume that the lock down is the thing that did all the wonders, but where is the direct A/B comparison data to actually prove it? (and no, don't compare different countries)

Absolutely, the same applies to all of those things, how do you really know which action contributed by how much? It stands to reason that if someone is isolated then they will not contract a virus or spread it to someone else, but how much do less drastic methods help? It's very difficult to know, it's not like we can really have a large control group that does nothing, and various groups that try different methods.
No matter what we do to slow the spread, if it works, it will appear to many that it was not necessary. I certainly don't have all the answers, I thought the whole thing was hype until I saw the dramatically increasing infection numbers.

Also let's not forget that something like >40% of the population were not isolated and in lockdown (I've seen numbers up to 50%). Everyone might feel like the entire country/city is in lockdown and no one is going out, but there are massive amounts of "essential" workers who's lives didn't change apart from increased hygiene and "social distancing".
It's a shame we may never have real concrete numbers on this because I fear that governments will do lock downs again at the drop of a hat, and if that's based on incomplete or just assumed data, then that's bad.

You will get no argument from me on the challenges that need to be met. We do know how to answer many of those questions with regard to what works and doesn't work, but we can't ever run those experiments because they are immoral, unethical and illegal - and we all know that.

I don't know what "assumed data" are. The data are the data and the data, so long as they are not simply faked, are always right- I so believe. Our analyses, understanding and interpretation of the data, however, are frequently wrong.

Data we are collecting now will be analyzed for decades and by many people. What I think I can ask is for Governments to make evidence-based decisions - and obviously with consultation with scientists. When it is clear that the evidence is insufficient for some desirable / acceptable level of confidence, there is still the burden of making a decision, even if it is to do nothing. Since none of these decisions are without cost (including doing nothing), they will be scrutinized for many years. Hopefully, correct consequences can be attributed to the decisions, but as pointed out already, that is not so easy in many cases. Still, we need to try.

Well into Covid-19 we were being told that there was no point in wearing face masks - even to the extent that some said you would actually enhance your chance of infection wearing one (apparently because you were more likely to touch your face). How do you think that "decision" will be scored? Admittedly, I have not seen irrefutable evidence that wearing the typical cheap face mask has any significant effect on the likelihood of infection. Once we know, however, that the virus can spread through droplets (cough / sneeze / say and spray), do we need to run the experiment to have some level of confidence that if you are infected (symptomatic or asymptomatic) it is beneficial to wear a face mask to mitigate spreading your virus-filled droplets?

I know that some have said that the early decision to not recommend wearing masks was for other reasons (i.e., leaving no masks for critical workers), but that is hardly being truthful and it made little or no sense or, was downright disingenuous and hiding a different problem.

Then, it all changed and many places in the US that are open, now do not allow entry without a face covering. I think it is the correct decision and delaying that decision was costly - but I can't prove that, at least not yet.

I was scrolling through this list of the top 20 epidemics / pandemics  https://www.livescience.com/worst-epidemics-and-pandemics-in-history.html and thinking about where we stand in regard to handling them.

I am afraid that we don't always seem to do so well, but we are getting better as we learn more and more.

HIV/AIDS is a good example. Today, people with AIDS do not have to die from AIDS. For quite a while, that was simply not true. But, it has taken many years to advance our knowledge to that point. Progress is painfully slow. Slower if we abandon the pursuit of knowledge.

[cdev]

Re: AIDS. Bill Haddad died recently, he was that rare person, a pharma company exec who tried to do what he could to improve the world.


About Bill Haddad

William F. Haddad: Chairman/CEO, Biogenerics, Inc., has been a pharmaceutical executive since 1986. As Chairman of the generic trade association, he initiated and negotiated Hatch-Waxman, the legislation that opened the door to generics in the United States. He was CEO of a major generic manufacturing company. Earlier he worked with Jack and Robert Kennedy and Senator Estes Kefauver. He was one of the founders of both the U.S. Peace Corps and the Office of Economic Opportunity (poverty program) and served as the Inspector General or both organizations. As a newsman at the NY Herald Tribune and the NY Post, he won a dozen awards for investigative reporting. He also learned about the wiretapping of Watergate three weeks before the break-in and reported it to the Democratic leadership. He exposed the worldwide tetracycline cartel by locating secret cartel minutes in two Latin American countries, destroying the cartel and leading to a $200,000,000 fine for Pfizer. He also found the secret minutes of the Uranium cartel that led to Congressional hearings conducted by then Congressman Albert Gore and Haddad. Using New York State’s subpoena he uncovered of the role of the New York banks in profiting from the collapse of the City’s financial system; located and exposed secret state police files that contained the names of a million citizens almost all had neither been accused of or committed a crime; he investigated organized crime’s role in sports; and he subpoenaed the major television networks to explain covert arrangements with advertisers in advertising to children. As a volunteer, he worked with Cipla to remove the barriers to the use of generic AIDS medicines. He has published several books. He was a merchant marine officer at sea when he was sixteen.

http://billhaddad.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

If you dig a bit there (its the only other story on his blog) there is also what seems to be his description of the AIDS crisis and the US pharmaceutical industry. Some of it is about the events that were depicted in the film "Fire in the Blood".

http://billhaddad.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-aids-story-you-may-not-have-heard.html?view=sidebar


What a mess..

They should be investigating approaches more like resveratrol because they may make us more resistant to viruses in a general way,
(See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=resveratrol+virus )

while vaccines only give you immunity against a very narrow number of potential viruses and are likely to be expensive and quite possibly useless eventually due to viruses mutating making the immunity less effective.

This is worth reading too:

Sirtuins Are Evolutionarily Conserved Viral Restriction Factors
https://mbio.asm.org/content/mbio/5/6/e02249-14.full.pdf

Unless we do the research we won't know if it helps, even though there seems to be a good chance that it does.

[rodpp]

Regarding the effects of the lock downs, social distance, etc, if that is really necessary or not, we need to check the numbers.

Its almost concensus that herd immunity occurs when around 70% of the population get the virus.

The mortality rate of covid19 is being estimated between 0.5% and 1% (one of the best guess we have is the city of NY, where is estimated that 25% of population were infected and they have around 14 K deaths). Let's consider a mortality rate of 0.7%.

Then, the number of expected deaths is 0.5% of the population.

If nothing is done, all that deaths will occur in 2 to 5 months. With social distancing measures we extend this period. But at the end the deaths number will be the same 0.5% of the population.

Why extend this period:
1- to not collapse the health system, otherwise the mortality rate increases significantly, and more than 0.5% of the population will die;
2- a vaccine can be found before we reach the herd immunity, and less people will die;
3- a treatment that reduces the mortality rate can be found, and less people will die.

The first point is more important because its impacts are immediate, so the social distancing measures should be guided by the health system capabilities.

The later two are our best desires, but it's hard to justify the economic loss of a long lock down waiting for a vaccine or treatment that we don't know if is viable or how long it will take.

[EEVblog]

The later two are our best desires, but it's hard to justify the economic loss of a long lock down waiting for a vaccine or treatment that we don't know if is viable or how long it will take.

Many governments (including ours) were literally saying "These lockdown laws will stay in effect until a vaccine is found", until a week or two later when the reality dawned on them that's the dumbest idea in history.
Protect and isolate both the vulnerable and infected, educate everyone and get most of society back on track as quickly as possible.
The thing with the 0.X% mortality rate is that it disproportionally impacts the elderly and other certain at risk people, so one could rightly argue that forced lockdowns for otherwise very low risk people maybe wasn't the best idea, especially given that circa 40% of the population weren't locked down anyway because they were too busy keeping society going.

But again, forced lockdowns were probably the most sensible option at the time given we knew very little about it, this could change next time around. I don't think the governments will get the same leeway they did this time when they have to lock down again (and you can bet it's going to happen again, because it's the "new normal"), and governments get drunk on power like that.

[nctnico]

The later two are our best desires, but it's hard to justify the economic loss of a long lock down waiting for a vaccine or treatment that we don't know if is viable or how long it will take.

Many governments (including ours) were literally saying "These lockdown laws will stay in effect until a vaccine is found", until a week or two later when the reality dawned on them that's the dumbest idea in history.

You have to add some nuances to that. You'll see that most countries will bring things back to normal in the next few months with the exception that large scale events will remain forbidden, staying and working at home (as much as possible) and social distancing will be required. Unless it turns out that stricter rules are necessary to keep Covid-19 spreading at a limited rate but at this point nobody knows exactly where the tipping point lies. So yes, the lockdown laws will remain in effect but the rules won't be as strict. IMHO it is unlikely we'll see total lockdowns agains. Countries like the Netherlands and Sweden have shown that keeping people locked inside isn't necessary to prevent an exponential spread of Covid-19.

It is kind of like testing when a fuse blows without going through a whole box of fuses. If you start at 100A and step down you'll likely need to test many fuses. If you start at 1mA and slowly ramp up, you'll only blow one fuse.

[nctnico]

Well into Covid-19 we were being told that there was no point in wearing face masks - even to the extent that some said you would actually enhance your chance of infection wearing one (apparently because you were more likely to touch your face). How do you think that "decision" will be scored? Admittedly, I have not seen irrefutable evidence that wearing the typical cheap face mask has any significant effect on the likelihood of infection. Once we know, however, that the virus can spread through droplets (cough / sneeze / say and spray), do we need to run the experiment to have some level of confidence that if you are infected (symptomatic or asymptomatic) it is beneficial to wear a face mask to mitigate spreading your virus-filled droplets?

I know that some have said that the early decision to not recommend wearing masks was for other reasons (i.e., leaving no masks for critical workers), but that is hardly being truthful and it made little or no sense or, was downright disingenuous and hiding a different problem.

The Dutch team of experts (about 40 scientists) which gives advice to the government is still at the position that wearing a face mask in general has no value in the grand scheme of things. However since a face mask has a limited positive effect when used temporary, wearing one will be mandatory in public transport from next month. Using a face mask right is a big issue. I just spotted a photo showing a woman selling flowers in Mexico. She had a nice floral face mask which didn't cover her nose.

[rodpp]

Australia did very well, according with the available data, and deserves slowly going back to the normal. Looking at new cases per day, it started increasing, reaching a local maximum, and decreased to very low numbers. Now it will start to relaxing and at one point the cases will start to increase again, and more restrictive measures will be necessary.
Here in Brazil we started with social distance measures very well, it was early and through all the country. But when the new cases curve started to stabilize we relaxed, before the decrease of new cases. The consequence is a very high (out of control) increase of new cases, and various states are now facing the health system collapse, requiring a total lock down to remedy the situation. But as the system has a delay of about two weeks, even with a effective lock down now we will suffer a lot in the next two or more weeks. Unfortunately, maybe our government will not take this seriously and the situation will be worse.

To be clear, the health system collapse means that regardless of your financial situation, if you have a health insurance or not, if you get sick and need an ICU, you will not have. It's when the doctors must choose who will have treatment, and who will send back to die in home. No one wants to be in that situation.

[EEVblog]

IMHO it is unlikely we'll see total lockdowns agains. Countries like the Netherlands and Sweden have shown that keeping people locked inside isn't necessary to prevent an exponential spread of Covid-19.

And again, there never was a total lock down anywhere, as typically circa 40% of people were still out of their home doing essential work.
So yeah, not surprising that you don't necessarily need to lock people in their homes.
I think just general awareness and good hygiene is likely enough to curtail true exponential spread in the general population.

[EEVblog]

Australia did very well, according with the available data, and deserves slowly going back to the normal. Looking at new cases per day, it started increasing, reaching a local maximum, and decreased to very low numbers. Now it will start to relaxing and at one point the cases will start to increase again, and more restrictive measures will be necessary.

It's going to be hard to justify another shutdown unless daily cases increase by an order of magnitude here. We are currently oscillating around 20 cases a day, usually as the result of a few particular specific locations like a famous nursing home here where 16% of our deaths nation wide have come from.
It's fascinating the study the data on this stuff, it's rather addictive.

[PlainName]

Here in the UK we didn't do a lockdown but were asked to be sensible in doing social distancing. The result? We have the highest numbers of deaths in Europe and had to have an enforced lockdown. The simple fact is that people en mass are dicks and will do whatever the hell they want if not forced to do something else. Just look at how quickly the rule of law breaks down when there's a disaster - Katrina, for instance. So whilst lockdowns to combat the virus may not be necessary and we could do it gently and sensibly in theory, they are essential just to get down to even those 40% you mention.

[cdev]

Where are the FET COVID-19 biosensor meters?

(which give instant testing results, and could make it possible to ramp up the amount of testing)

Citation: Rapid Detection of COVID-19 Causative Virus (SARS-CoV-2) in Human Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens Using Field-Effect Transistor-Based Biosensor | ACS Nano

Here in the UK we didn't do a lockdown but were asked to be sensible in doing social distancing. The result? We have the highest numbers of deaths in Europe and had to have an enforced lockdown. The simple fact is that people en mass are dicks and will do whatever the hell they want if not forced to do something else. Just look at how quickly the rule of law breaks down when there's a disaster - Katrina, for instance. So whilst lockdowns to combat the virus may not be necessary and we could do it gently and sensibly in theory, they are essential just to get down to even those 40% you mention.

[Nusa]

Where are the FET COVID-19 biosensor meters?

(which give instant testing results, and could make it possible to ramp up the amount of testing)

Citation: Rapid Detection of COVID-19 Causative Virus (SARS-CoV-2) in Human Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens Using Field-Effect Transistor-Based Biosensor | ACS Nano

Here in the UK we didn't do a lockdown but were asked to be sensible in doing social distancing. The result? We have the highest numbers of deaths in Europe and had to have an enforced lockdown. The simple fact is that people en mass are dicks and will do whatever the hell they want if not forced to do something else. Just look at how quickly the rule of law breaks down when there's a disaster - Katrina, for instance. So whilst lockdowns to combat the virus may not be necessary and we could do it gently and sensibly in theory, they are essential just to get down to even those 40% you mention.

No such thing as instant testing results. Even the article only claims rapid testing. The "> 1 min" result time in that last chart doesn't inspire confidence...there's a LOT of room above 1 minute. ("instantaneous measurement" when used by scientists refers to data at a particular point in time, not how fast it takes to produce/process that data.)

In any case, technology takes time and engineering to move from a lab to prototypes that can be used in the real world. And assuming that's successful, a lot more time to produce in sufficient numbers to have any real effect. In normal conditions, we're typically talking years. Even in pandemic conditions with a blank check and assuming the science isn't flawed, ramping up production, quality control and distribution won't happen overnight. (If the science was tested enough to justify a blank check from some government, we'd probably be hearing about it by now.)

[Syntax Error]

Might even be able to turn this technology into a Covid breathalyzer?

A bit more on how graphene biosensors function:
https://www.graphene-info.com/graphene-sensors

[cdev]

Thank you! 

See also:

https://www.graphene-info.com/graphene-frontiers-gfet-chemical-sensor-explained

"The company is currently targeting two main applications: early detection of Lyme disease and cancer detection. Graphene Frontiers will first enter the research-use-only (RUO) market with a basic, customizable product. This is a limited volume market (orders may reach a few hundreds of chips), but later on they want to also enter the diagnostic and consumer health markets - which may require tens of millions of chips.

In the first stage, the company aims to produce those GFET-based sensors on 4" wafers in low-volume (few wafers per day) in-house. The chip itself is about 5x5 mm in size, and will come in multiplex/array of about 10 devices. Each chip is expected to cost a "few dollars". Later in 2014 they will partner with a MEMS fab for mass-scale 4" wafer production. By 2015, they plan to be able to produce tens of millions of chips per year."

So it was supposed to be quite affordable at that stage, a few years ago.



Presumably this kind of meter is how they propose to do something like analyzing feces in the sewer system for COVID-19, presumably to gather aggregate data on peoples health status .

Instant testing would allow them to focus more on the aspects of the COVID-19 situation that could make it less of a problem now. (like better, inexpensive diagnosis and treatments, in this case, instant testing that could get people into treatment earlier.)