Working From Home - Impacts of Coronavirus

[coppice]

The lockdown will be still successful even if inter-state travel is allowed, because people working from home and avoiding contact will reduce the spread.  What you can't do is go back to normal until there's a vaccination or antiviral available.

So, you expect some amount of lockdown to continue for years, and perhaps indefinitely? All the "vaccine is just around the corner" claims ignore that vaccines have always taken years to reach the market, and effective vaccines for rapidly changing virii have generally defeated the vaccine industry. Any plan based on a vaccine appearing is not really a plan at all. Its wishful thinking. A real plan has to work without a vaccine, with the appearance of a vaccine being a nice bonus that makes life easier.

[Zero999]

The lockdown will be still successful even if inter-state travel is allowed, because people working from home and avoiding contact will reduce the spread.  What you can't do is go back to normal until there's a vaccination or antiviral available.

So, you expect some amount of lockdown to continue for years, and perhaps indefinitely? All the "vaccine is just around the corner" claims ignore that vaccines have always taken years to reach the market, and effective vaccines for rapidly changing virii have generally defeated the vaccine industry. Any plan based on a vaccine appearing is not really a plan at all. Its wishful thinking. A real plan has to work without a vaccine, with the appearance of a vaccine being a nice bonus that makes life easier.

Well no, not quite, once the numeber of cases has fallen to low enough levels, the lockdown can be largely replaced with, contact tracing, testing and isolation of infected people. Unfortunately, I think we'll need some social distancing measures to be in place for quite some time. In the UK, so far we've managed to get most shops open and people back to work, without a resurgence in cases. The next step will whether we can reopen hairdressers and pubs, without the R going above 1, which I think is possible, as long as the proposed measures are implemented, which involve keeping groups of people apart and no lound music, so people don't have to shout. I'm cynical about nightclubs reopening and large parties taking place, without a second wave.

My worry is the second wave will occur during the run up to Chrismas. If we want to avoid a second wave, this Chrismas should be different. People should only visit their immediate family. There should be no massive parties, with people getting drink and dancing with one another. Companies should organise separate parties for individual teams and not permit them to bring guests. We can enjoy ourselves without all of that bollocks.

[paulca]

We can enjoy ourselves without all of that bollocks.

Yes grandpa.

[tom66]

The lockdown will be still successful even if inter-state travel is allowed, because people working from home and avoiding contact will reduce the spread.  What you can't do is go back to normal until there's a vaccination or antiviral available.

So, you expect some amount of lockdown to continue for years, and perhaps indefinitely? All the "vaccine is just around the corner" claims ignore that vaccines have always taken years to reach the market, and effective vaccines for rapidly changing virii have generally defeated the vaccine industry. Any plan based on a vaccine appearing is not really a plan at all. Its wishful thinking. A real plan has to work without a vaccine, with the appearance of a vaccine being a nice bonus that makes life easier.

What is the alternative?  These countries (UK and US) have screwed up and failed to contain the virus.  It is wild in the community.  If we say ~70,000 deaths due to CV19 (40k reported, 30k other) in the UK, but only 7% of the general population has had the virus, then to let it rip through the rest of the UK would mean we expect around 1 million deaths in the UK alone. That is worse than Spanish Flu.  (228,000 dead in UK estimated.)

If we were New Zealand or S.Korea we could look at opening borders with the requirement for virus testing upon entry (at traveller's expense). Tests already exist that can give a positive result within 10 minutes, so it is believably practical to do that at the airport and allow tourists back into the country cautiously.

But we can't do that. And neither can be sustain (economically and socially) total lockdown endlessly.  But some form of lockdown is going to be needed for the next year at least, and possibly longer. As you say, vaccines are not an overnight affair.  It's going to hurt.  Some hospitality businesses may never recover.

This government is already talking about opening up air corridors - I just cannot see that going well. One infected person on an aircraft with recirculated air is suddenly 200 infected visitors.

[Nusa]

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-hospitals-hit-100-base-ICU-capacity-15372256.php

Texas Medical Center hospitals stopped updating key metrics showing the stress rising numbers of COVID-19 patients were placing on their facilities for more than three days, rattling policymakers and residents who have relied on the information to gauge the spread of the coronavirus.

The institutions — which together constitute the world’s largest medical complex — reported Thursday that their base intensive care capacity had hit 100 percent for the first time during the pandemic and was on pace to exceed an “unsustainable surge capacity” of intensive care beds by July 6.

Texas's biggest problem is in Houston (population about 2.4 million), which is going to be worth watching as they fall into the rabbit hole.

[paulca]

Tests already exist that can give a positive result within 10 minutes, so it is believably practical to do that at the airport and allow tourists back into the country cautiously.

I think the downside with those 10 minute tests is they are single test machines.  So to test a single 747 with 350 passengers... unless you have dozens of machines, it might take some time.

Expanding those numbers out hypothetically.  If you had 100 machines, it would take roughly 35-40 minutes to test a flight.  More like an hour.  Large airports land 747s every 5 minutes.

[paulca]

I believe we need to move to localising restrictions.  Each borough or area has it's own status level.  From LOW with 1m distancing, pubs and clubs open to HIGH, total lockdown.

These can be broadcast on local radio stations during the news.  Reports like:

"West Cumbria has issued a Covid-19 warning and status of MEDIUM today after a surge of 112 cases in the last 2 days.  People are advised not to travel to or from West Cumbria and full 2m social distancing is in effect.  Hospitality is closed. " etc. etc.

We can also stop saying "The UK has lost control".  It's quite clear it is only England (and possibly Wales) who have lost control.  Scotland, Northern Ireland and most of the isles have it under control, currently.

[Nusa]

Large airports land 747s every 5 minutes.

That's all in the past, at least in passenger service. Most of the 747's still flying today only carry cargo, not passengers. The rest are mostly parked, and many will never see passenger service again. Most of the much newer and more efficient wide-body jets (like B777 or A380) are also parked. Expect narrow-body jets to carry passenger load between most points. It will take years, no joke, for the demand to return to previous levels.

[paulca]

It's sort of depressing.  With so much confusion going on in the Western world right now, particularly in the states and with the US and UK easing lock downs etc.  It is easy to become complacent and think this is over.

I haven't been looking at any of the data for a few weeks, but checking John Hopkins data this morning it looks like it's increasing again in daily cases.  It could even go properly exponential again.  The world daily new cases is accelerating as is the US and probably the UK/England.

On vaccines.  I have two competing thoughts.
Coronaviruses are not new, most of the ones we know of cause a mild cold.  Nobody has managed to cure or vacinate against the common cold yet.  What are their chances of doing so now?
The competing thoughts are that there is less incentive to cure the common cold that a coronavirus that kills 1%+ of people.  So maybe with enough funding they will find one.
The other two SARS/MERS outbreaks didn't produce a vaccine that I'm aware of, once they outbreaks went away funding was probably pulled.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

It will take years, no joke, for the demand to return to previous levels.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/statistics

[Nusa]

It will take years, no joke, for the demand to return to previous levels.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/statistics

Which is counting all kinds of flights, not number of passengers being transported or what size planes are being used when they are. I was referring to passenger demand.

Try:
https://www.tsa.gov/coronavirus/passenger-throughput  for daily figures on passengers passing through security in the USA. Yesterdays number was 633,810. A year ago on the same day it was 2,632,030.

Or:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/564717/airline-industry-passenger-traffic-globally/

[paulca]

Try:
https://www.tsa.gov/coronavirus/passenger-throughput  for daily figures on passengers passing through security in the USA.

Who in their right mind would want to go there?  Have you not seen the news?

[DrG]

It's sort of depressing.  With so much confusion going on in the Western world right now, particularly in the states and with the US and UK easing lock downs etc.  It is easy to become complacent and think this is over.

I haven't been looking at any of the data for a few weeks, but checking John Hopkins data this morning it looks like it's increasing again in daily cases.  It could even go properly exponential again.  The world daily new cases is accelerating as is the US and probably the UK/England.

On vaccines.  I have two competing thoughts.
Coronaviruses are not new, most of the ones we know of cause a mild cold.  Nobody has managed to cure or vacinate against the common cold yet.  What are their chances of doing so now?
The competing thoughts are that there is less incentive to cure the common cold that a coronavirus that kills 1%+ of people.  So maybe with enough funding they will find one.
The other two SARS/MERS outbreaks didn't produce a vaccine that I'm aware of, once they outbreaks went away funding was probably pulled.

Take a look at this database / tracker https://covid-19tracker.milkeninstitute.org/#treatment_antibodies

Today's counts: 257 treatments, 172 vaccines

We will get there.

[Zero999]

The lockdown will be still successful even if inter-state travel is allowed, because people working from home and avoiding contact will reduce the spread.  What you can't do is go back to normal until there's a vaccination or antiviral available.

So, you expect some amount of lockdown to continue for years, and perhaps indefinitely? All the "vaccine is just around the corner" claims ignore that vaccines have always taken years to reach the market, and effective vaccines for rapidly changing virii have generally defeated the vaccine industry. Any plan based on a vaccine appearing is not really a plan at all. Its wishful thinking. A real plan has to work without a vaccine, with the appearance of a vaccine being a nice bonus that makes life easier.

What is the alternative?  These countries (UK and US) have screwed up and failed to contain the virus.  It is wild in the community.  If we say ~70,000 deaths due to CV19 (40k reported, 30k other) in the UK, but only 7% of the general population has had the virus, then to let it rip through the rest of the UK would mean we expect around 1 million deaths in the UK alone. That is worse than Spanish Flu.  (228,000 dead in UK estimated.)

1 million deaths in the UK, at the end of the epidemic, would only happen if something goes horribly wrong, such as a massive runaway infection causing the hospitals to choke up. 70k excess deaths so far already sounds pessimistic, it's probably more like 60k, but 65k is what was reported a week ago, so let's assume that's correct for now.
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/uk/excess-deaths-in-uk-pass-65000-what-the-latest-covid-19-figures-tell-us/

If we assume the Office for National Statistics antibody testing report giving an infection rate of 6.8% of the population, then we can say we've roughly had 4.6million cases so far, leading to an average excess death rate of 1.4% per case, weather this be direct or indirect.

As of 24 May 2020, 6.78% (95% confidence interval: 5.21% to 8.64%) of individuals from whom blood samples were taken tested positive for antibodies to the coronavirus (COVID-19). This is based on blood test results from 885 individuals since the start of the study on 26 April 2020.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/12june2020

Fortunately, it's highly unlikely the entire population will become infected, because as more people develop immunity, the R number will gradually fall, until it drops below 1, since even those who haven't being exposed to it will be surrounded by those who are immune and will never get infected. This is why it's so important to prioritise the most vulnerable groups of people: older, male, and of black and minority ethnicity. It's generally accepted 70% of the population will need to have been exposed to gain herd immunity, so assuming that's right, 70% of 68 million is 47.6 million and the excess death rate is 1.4% per case, giving a total of ²/₃ million excess deaths.

I think if we're successful in containing the outbreak, the total will be around around double the number of deaths is expected. This new drug will help to reduce the case fatality rate and hospital capacity won't be exceeded, so they're shouldn't be any more deaths due to cancellations or fear of going to hospital and getting COVID-19.

[PlainName]

If you had 100 machines, it would take roughly 35-40 minutes to test a flight.  More like an hour.

The UK airports would luuurve that. Not only would they have enforced stays in shopping malls on the outward journey, they get to implement it on the inbound too! Think of the spondulicks.

[cdev]

It must really suck for people whose jobs involve a lot of confined places and breathing other people's air.

Try:
https://www.tsa.gov/coronavirus/passenger-throughput  for daily figures on passengers passing through security in the USA.

Who in their right mind would want to go there?  Have you not seen the news?

[cdev]

That reminds me of Dockweiler Beach in LA, which is right underneath the filight path for LAX, one of the busiest airports in the US. I wonder what its like today?

Large airports land 747s every 5 minutes.

That's all in the past, at least in passenger service. Most of the 747's still flying today only carry cargo, not passengers. The rest are mostly parked, and many will never see passenger service again. Most of the much newer and more efficient wide-body jets (like B777 or A380) are also parked. Expect narrow-body jets to carry passenger load between most points. It will take years, no joke, for the demand to return to previous levels.

[coppice]

Large airports land 747s every 5 minutes.

That's all in the past, at least in passenger service. Most of the 747's still flying today only carry cargo, not passengers. The rest are mostly parked, and many will never see passenger service again. Most of the much newer and more efficient wide-body jets (like B777 or A380) are also parked. Expect narrow-body jets to carry passenger load between most points. It will take years, no joke, for the demand to return to previous levels.

This is being exacerbated by COVID-19, but it was happening anyway. The 747 and A380 have been rapidly dying off in recent years, in favour of the 777, 787 and A350.

[PlainName]

70% of 68 million is 47.6 million and the excess death rate is 1.4% per case, giving a total of 2/3 million excess deaths

JH reports 10m worldwide infections, 500K deaths. On that basis, 47m infected would be worth 2m deaths.

[Zero999]

70% of 68 million is 47.6 million and the excess death rate is 1.4% per case, giving a total of 2/3 million excess deaths

JH reports 10m worldwide infections, 500K deaths. On that basis, 47m infected would be worth 2m deaths.

No, that's a totally unrealistic estimate, because the number of infections worldwide is much higher than that. Antigen testing (this is whether the person has it at the time or not) is heavily biased in favour of those who have symptoms, or have been exposed to those who are ill. We know that most people experience a very mild illness and some people never experience any symptoms. No one will bother to get tested, if they feel fine and haven't come into contact with a sick person. It's true the number of deaths will also be higher, than the number reported, but not by the same ratio, as the infection rate. The numbers I gave are more realistic, because the number of infections is based on a random sample of antibody tests, which test whether or not someone has had the virus in the past and will include asymptomatic cases. If we do the same as you have done for the UK, which has 311,965 cases and 43,575 deaths, then we get a case fatality rate of nearly 14%, which is more than a factor of ten greater than the real number, because the randomly sampled antibody tests show a much greater proportion of the population has been infected than the antigen tests show.

[cliffyk]

Due to heart attacks and strokes I worked from home; June 2012 through my retirement on March 31, 2016. I was fortunate to have an employer (the State of Florida) with work-at-home policies in place, and that considered my work to be of sufficient value so as to allow me to do it. I even got a gigabit fiber optic line into my home office, that lives on to this day but just at 250 Mbs...

[cdev]

Vaccines likely are not the right approach.

Modulating the sirtuin system probably is.

On vaccines.  I have two competing thoughts.
Coronaviruses are not new, most of the ones we know of cause a mild cold.  Nobody has managed to cure or vacinate against the common cold yet.  What are their chances of doing so now?
The competing thoughts are that there is less incentive to cure the common cold that a coronavirus that kills 1%+ of people.  So maybe with enough funding they will find one.
The other two SARS/MERS outbreaks didn't produce a vaccine that I'm aware of, once they outbreaks went away funding was probably pulled.

N-Acetylcysteine is also quite useful.

[nctnico]

No, that's a totally unrealistic estimate, because the number of infections worldwide is much higher than that. Antigen testing (this is whether the person has it at the time or not) is heavily biased in favour of those who have symptoms, or have been exposed to those who are ill. We know that most people experience a very mild illness and some people never experience any symptoms. No one will bother to get tested,

Not quite. Over here they test donated blood for Covid-19 anti-bodies. This give a reasonable accurate view on the number of infections. And since blood is donated continuously it is possible to establish a time line on how the infection grew. I'm not sure whether they are registering the areas where the blood was donated though.

[Zero999]

No, that's a totally unrealistic estimate, because the number of infections worldwide is much higher than that. Antigen testing (this is whether the person has it at the time or not) is heavily biased in favour of those who have symptoms, or have been exposed to those who are ill. We know that most people experience a very mild illness and some people never experience any symptoms. No one will bother to get tested,

Not quite. Over here they test donated blood for Covid-19 anti-bodies. This give a reasonable accurate view on the number of infections. And since blood is donated continuously it is possible to establish a time line on how the infection grew. I'm not sure whether they are registering the areas where the blood was donated though.

Blood donation is better than swab tests, but will still be subject to selection bias. Randomly testing people for antibodies eliminates any selection bias, but you have a point that the sample size will be smaller, than blood donation.

Sewage is also another way to test for the virus in large populations, but levels will also depend on other factors such as rainfall, which will dilute the samples.

[coppice]

That is worse than Spanish Flu.

People love comparing any new infection with Spanish flu, but most of those comparisons miss something important. In 1920 most people worked almost to the point of death. They were typically fit enough to work until some point where they went downhill rapidly and were gone. Most people didn't spend years in a weak and vulnerable state, perhaps in care home, at the end of their lives. Now, retirement and care homes are a huge industry. We don't need something as powerful as Spanish flu to rip through a substantial section of the population. Any half assed infection novel enough to become widespread is a huge risk to the elderly, and new infections are popping up all the time. Just a couple of days ago I read about a new form of swine flu, while we are still in the middle of the COVID-19 problem. The inevitability of new pathogens needs to be factored into how society functions. Remember that Beijing was a large city when the largest cites in Europe were much smaller, and limited by their infection related death rates. Beijing was big through a single innovation in Chinese culture - hygiene. They didn't clean up the place because of an understanding of biology. It was mostly a cultural thing, because the city folk had to be more refined than the plebs in the countryside, but it worked. Civil engineering has done more to make the modern world healthy than any medical care. We need to up our hygiene game once again.