Working From Home - Impacts of Coronavirus

[Nusa]

Apparently California just today passed New York as the state with the highest number of Covid19 cases.  Exponential functions are a b!tch...

One of those statistics that misrepresents reality because it's not population adjusted. Go here and sort by Total case / 1M population. See where California is on that list (you may need to scroll). How about Arizona and Florida?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

[Ed.Kloonk]

Or offer other perks. My employer doesn't pay all that great, but they offered flexible hours, work from home even prior to Covid, "unlimited" PTO which means essentially that as long as your work gets done you can just take time off whenever you need it.

Altium used to have free food (breakfast, lunch, and dinner), make your own hours, free gym membership, free car washing, free concierge errand service (i.e. get someone to go to the shop to buy something for you etc) and other stuff. Still couldn't get staff because of the shitty location, probably the worst spot in Sydney for a tech company.

I was around in those days when that region was (on paper) poised to be another Chatswood. That's why the Bunnings (Hardware House) was put there, to feed the construction of the new metropolis.

One of my good payers used his powers as CEO and moved his company HQ in there with the same aspirations as, I'm sure, Altium had.

The idea was to sort of spread out in all four directions with a kind of less dense approach that would appease the existing local residents. One such resident was a certain Dick Head  who, like several others, had a bad case of the NIMBY's. So the project got stifled somewhat.

In the opposite direction down the hill towards froggy forrest, was seen as a fertile gold mine, ready to explode. That's why that overpass/underpass got built.

There were other factors that frightened the next wave of investors after the first ones had done so much. All three levels of bastardy if you catch my drift, I'll spare ya the gory details. 

Most commercial entities who weren't locked in choofed-off to Parra, Chatty or Nth Sydney. And that was that.

[SilverSolder]

Apparently California just today passed New York as the state with the highest number of Covid19 cases.  Exponential functions are a b!tch...

One of those statistics that misrepresents reality because it's not population adjusted. Go here and sort by Total case / 1M population. See where California is on that list (you may need to scroll). How about Arizona and Florida?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

I am yet to be convinced that dividing the cases by the population makes a lot of sense.  - After all, it only takes one infected person to cause a problem, even if the population is 1.4Bn as in China.

Seen from that perspective, the important number is how many "carriers" are on the loose and potentially infecting the healthy population (whether the healthy population is 10K or 10Gig persons doesn't matter).

[Ed.Kloonk]

Apparently California just today passed New York as the state with the highest number of Covid19 cases.  Exponential functions are a b!tch...

One of those statistics that misrepresents reality because it's not population adjusted. Go here and sort by Total case / 1M population. See where California is on that list (you may need to scroll). How about Arizona and Florida?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

I am yet to be convinced that dividing the cases by the population makes a lot of sense.  - After all, it only takes one infected person to cause a problem, even if the population is 1.4Bn as in China.

Seen from that perspective, the important number is how many "carriers" are on the loose and potentially infecting the healthy population (whether the healthy population is 10K or 10Gig persons doesn't matter).

The point is sound but the hysterical news media cannot make up their minds which approach to take, so they err on the side of running with the one that is most likely to frighten the daylights out of people.

[Nusa]

Apparently California just today passed New York as the state with the highest number of Covid19 cases.  Exponential functions are a b!tch...

One of those statistics that misrepresents reality because it's not population adjusted. Go here and sort by Total case / 1M population. See where California is on that list (you may need to scroll). How about Arizona and Florida?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

I am yet to be convinced that dividing the cases by the population makes a lot of sense.  - After all, it only takes one infected person to cause a problem, even if the population is 1.4Bn as in China.

Seen from that perspective, the important number is how many "carriers" are on the loose and potentially infecting the healthy population (whether the healthy population is 10K or 10Gig persons doesn't matter).

You divided cases by population when you compared two states to each other in the first place. You just failed to mention the fact that California has twice the population of New York state.

But let's go with your argument. If what counts is the number of carriers, then Total cases is still the wrong metric, since that's counting a LOT of people who aren't currently carriers, including those that are dead and those who are fully recovered. I'd suggest that population density matters as well. Did you know that the densest parts of the NYC metro area are actually in New Jersey? New Jersey actually beats New York and leads the nation when it comes to Deaths / 1M population.

[Ed.Kloonk]

Apparently California just today passed New York as the state with the highest number of Covid19 cases.  Exponential functions are a b!tch...

One of those statistics that misrepresents reality because it's not population adjusted. Go here and sort by Total case / 1M population. See where California is on that list (you may need to scroll). How about Arizona and Florida?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

I am yet to be convinced that dividing the cases by the population makes a lot of sense.  - After all, it only takes one infected person to cause a problem, even if the population is 1.4Bn as in China.

Seen from that perspective, the important number is how many "carriers" are on the loose and potentially infecting the healthy population (whether the healthy population is 10K or 10Gig persons doesn't matter).

You divided cases by population when you compared two states to each other in the first place. You just failed to mention the fact that California has twice the population of New York state.

But let's go with your argument. If what counts is the number of carriers, then Total cases is still the wrong metric, since that's counting a LOT of people who aren't currently carriers, including those that are dead and those who are fully recovered. I'd suggest that population density matters as well. Did you know that the densest parts of the NYC metro area are actually in New Jersey? New Jersey actually beats New York and leads the nation when it comes to Deaths / 1M population.

It doesn't help that there are reports floating around that cause of death was adjusted to achieve extra funding.

[SilverSolder]

Apparently California just today passed New York as the state with the highest number of Covid19 cases.  Exponential functions are a b!tch...

One of those statistics that misrepresents reality because it's not population adjusted. Go here and sort by Total case / 1M population. See where California is on that list (you may need to scroll). How about Arizona and Florida?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

I am yet to be convinced that dividing the cases by the population makes a lot of sense.  - After all, it only takes one infected person to cause a problem, even if the population is 1.4Bn as in China.

Seen from that perspective, the important number is how many "carriers" are on the loose and potentially infecting the healthy population (whether the healthy population is 10K or 10Gig persons doesn't matter).

You divided cases by population when you compared two states to each other in the first place. You just failed to mention the fact that California has twice the population of New York state.

But let's go with your argument. If what counts is the number of carriers, then Total cases is still the wrong metric, since that's counting a LOT of people who aren't currently carriers, including those that are dead and those who are fully recovered. I'd suggest that population density matters as well. Did you know that the densest parts of the NYC metro area are actually in New Jersey? New Jersey actually beats New York and leads the nation when it comes to Deaths / 1M population.

Well, total cases would include the number of carriers (i.e. they were carriers at some point...  not necessarily now, and they may not even be alive any longer).  I agree it isn't a super useful number.

More useful would be to estimate the number of currently active carriers from the number of daily new cases over the most recent 2 weeks. 

That would make the daily number of new cases the most important metric - is the number of active carriers going up or down?

Seen from this angle, we can then talk about what drives the daily number of new cases.  The previous two week's number of carriers is the biggest factor, followed by things like population density, hygiene, mask wearing, and the rest of it.   The Asian countries understood this from the get-go and went after the carriers early on, with zero tolerance - it is how they wiped the virus out.

[PlainName]

That would make the daily number of new cases the most important metric.

Only if you make it relative, such as a percentage increase or decrease. Absolute numbers would be meaningless.

Edit: but even percentages would be wrong. Whatever numbers you come up with you'd probably need to take account of population density (100 people spread out are going to have a lower R than the same number all in the same street, for instance). And the density distribution - several dense ares, like towns, would skew the numbers in a different way to the same numbers over the same area but evenly spread.

[SilverSolder]

That would make the daily number of new cases the most important metric.

Only if you make it relative, such as a percentage increase or decrease. Absolute numbers would be meaningless.

Edit: but even percentages would be wrong. Whatever numbers you come up with you'd probably need to take account of population density (100 people spread out are going to have a lower R than the same number all in the same street, for instance). And the density distribution - several dense ares, like towns, would skew the numbers in a different way to the same numbers over the same area but evenly spread.

So if we had 200 new cases yesterday and 220 new ones today,  we would presumably agree that the trend is going the wrong direction and we need to reverse it.  No matter what the other factors are.

[Zero999]

The USA really is a bizarre test case for what happens when you basically stick your fingers in your ears for several months and pretend COVID is not a thing.  Whaddya know, cases climb even faster.

I think the sad thing is if they had locked down really hard for 2-3 months instead of the weak-willed lockdown where some states still had bars and restaurants open, they would have been in a situation similar to the UK, and would be cautiously reopening with screening at the borders and social distancing/mask requirements.

But now they've turned into one of a few countries in the world, that every other country wants to ban tourism and visits to.

The US is a vast country. Some states have done better than others. The problem is it's difficult to limit people travelling from one state to another. The central government should have emergency powers to restrict interstate travel.

As far as lockdowns are concerned, it's not binary. At one extreme is a total lockdown, when everyone is confined to their homes, are not allowed to go out for any reason and have essential items such as food rations delivered to their doors, by the authorities. This has been proven to completely eliminate COVID-19, from the area within a few weeks, but it only works in relatively small areas, because it requires a huge level of enforcement and people to deliver supplies. There are only to examples of complete lockdowns, I know of: Wuhan, China and Vo, Italy. At the other end of the spectrum, most things stay open, with only large gatherings of people prohibited. Sweden did the latter and whist it did have more deaths, than comparable countries, cases in the country have still fallen and they've faired better than much of the US.

Most of Europe had a fairly extensive lockdown, when people were only allowed to leave their homes for food and if they couldn't work from home, although lots of business were closed anyway. Now most countries have eased their lockdowns, whist keeping some social distancing measures in place and implementing contact tracing and isolation. Most US states seem to have made the mistake of easing the lockdowns too quickly and not implementing other measures to control the spread. The authorities should find out where most of the spread is occurring and focus their efforts of those areas, rather than applying blanket lockdowns.

[dietert1]

US Americans are very self confident and slow to accept their fate. When you look at the statistics web site linked above, there are few states with more than 1000 dead from Covid19 per million people. And those are the states with the lowest number of new infections, which indicates low virus activity. So people are learning it the hard way. In this sense Trump and his government are representative.

Regards, Dieter

[PlainName]

So if we had 200 new cases yesterday and 220 new ones today,  we would presumably agree that the trend is going the wrong direction and we need to reverse it.  No matter what the other factors are.

In a one-word answer, yes.

But... in a population of 300m those figures are nothing. For a village of 1000 it's pretty disastrous. And if the previous day was, say, 170 and the day before 100 then it might be the wrong direction but it's coming around.

[SilverSolder]

So if we had 200 new cases yesterday and 220 new ones today,  we would presumably agree that the trend is going the wrong direction and we need to reverse it.  No matter what the other factors are.

In a one-word answer, yes.

But... in a population of 300m those figures are nothing. For a village of 1000 it's pretty disastrous. And if the previous day was, say, 170 and the day before 100 then it might be the wrong direction but it's coming around.

Because of exponential growth, even 1 single case is not "nothing" because you know everyone will eventually be infected if the spread is not curbed.

So we are right back to looking at the daily numbers...  whether they are in the tens or the ten thousands,  we need them to be trending down.

[PlainName]

because you know everyone will eventually be infected if the spread is not curbed

In a large population with high density areas dotted around, you might have a better chance of stopping the spread than with a small population where a third of them already have it. So, no, I don't think it's necessarily a given that everyone will eventually be infected. New Zealand shows that it can be stopped.

[SilverSolder]

Another way to see the daily new cases is to look at the slope of the totals.

If you look at the slopes for CA, FL, TX you can see that this is heading for a monumental disaster unless something changes soon.

[Zero999]

because you know everyone will eventually be infected if the spread is not curbed

In a large population with high density areas dotted around, you might have a better chance of stopping the spread than with a small population where a third of them already have it. So, no, I don't think it's necessarily a given that everyone will eventually be infected. New Zealand shows that it can be stopped.

Small areas are much easier to manage though. New Zealand is relatively remote, with little international travel, so it's not surprising they've managed to contain it. Some of the British isles are now COVID-free Guernsey and the Isle of Man spring to mind, but I'm sure there are others.

[Ed.Kloonk]

because you know everyone will eventually be infected if the spread is not curbed

In a large population with high density areas dotted around, you might have a better chance of stopping the spread than with a small population where a third of them already have it. So, no, I don't think it's necessarily a given that everyone will eventually be infected. New Zealand shows that it can be stopped.

Small areas are much easier to manage though. New Zealand is relatively remote, with little international travel, so it's not surprising they've managed to contain it. Some of the British isles are now COVID-free Guernsey and the Isle of Man spring to mind, but I'm sure there are others.

Whilst there are a number of clangers NZ had during their so-called handling of this, much of the severity that was curbed can be attributed to the pre-existing paranoid agriculture protection systems already in place.

[Ed.Kloonk]

Trying to grasp how much more the prolonged stay at home stuff will be in place, the far right keeps pointing out that the covid cases spike should be blamed on the riots, since Americans aren't allowed to do anything else.

It leaves me with two questions. Are the riots really causing a spike and indeed preventing the drop in cases? Can the bullshit hounds on here sit though a 3.5 minute video and actually debunk the presented, cherry-picked I'm sure, 'facts'?

The graph at 0:25s:

[maginnovision]

What are you, racist? The protests have slowed COVID. Thank whoever you like that they decided to start protesting or you'd really see what COVID could do.

https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/covid-blm-protests-link
https://coloradosun.com/2020/06/30/police-protests-coronavirus-spread/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/us/coronavirus-cases-protests-black-lives-matter-trnd/index.html

[SilverSolder]

On the left, mass protests...  on the right, refusing to wear masks etc. 

Only the long suffering moderate middle Americans will make it through to the other side intact! 

[Zero999]

What are you, racist? The protests have slowed COVID. Thank whoever you like that they decided to start protesting or you'd really see what COVID could do.

https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/covid-blm-protests-link
https://coloradosun.com/2020/06/30/police-protests-coronavirus-spread/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/us/coronavirus-cases-protests-black-lives-matter-trnd/index.html

It's plausible that more people will stay indoors whilst there's unrest and the protesters represented a relatively small proportion of the population, but:
1) Those articles are around a month old, which is ancient history, as far as the pandemic is concerned.
2) The studies they're based on were also not peer reviewed, so don't take them as solid evidence.

Meanwhile, in the UK, the government has reintroduced quarantine for people travelling from Spain. Unfortunately, many people have booked holidays there and will lose money, as they won't be able to return to work for two weeks. This comes after months of lockdown and now we're having one of the coolest and wettest summers in recent years, so more people want to escape to the sun.

[coppice]

Meanwhile, in the UK, the government has reintroduced quarantine for people travelling from Spain. Unfortunately, many people have booked holidays there and will lose money, as they won't be able to return to work for two weeks. This comes after months of lockdown and now we're having one of the coolest and wettest summers in recent years, so more people want to escape to the sun.

We are having a cool and wet July, but June was much nicer than usual. Overall, we have been able to dine in the garden a lot more this year than last year (which to me seems like a reasonable measure of warm dry weather).

[Zero999]

Meanwhile, in the UK, the government has reintroduced quarantine for people travelling from Spain. Unfortunately, many people have booked holidays there and will lose money, as they won't be able to return to work for two weeks. This comes after months of lockdown and now we're having one of the coolest and wettest summers in recent years, so more people want to escape to the sun.

We are having a cool and wet July, but June was much nicer than usual. Overall, we have been able to dine in the garden a lot more this year than last year (which to me seems like a reasonable measure of warm dry weather).

Yes spring and early summer were nice, but the weather seems to have taken a nosedive since lockdown lifted, at least where I live: bloody typical!

Anyway, back on topic, it seems like long term immunity to COVID-19 is becoming increasingly likely.

People who were previously infected with the original SARS back in 2003 still have high levels of T cells which also are likely to make them immune to COVID-19. It's also possible mild coronaviruses which cause the common cold might provide crossimmunity to COVID-19, which could explain why there are asymptomatic infections, which never progress to even a mild illness.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
https://www.ft.com/content/5cf2ee49-df7a-4990-b337-860cf7737b2f

I doubt the authorities will acknowledge this, even it does become proven it's not possible to get COVID-19 more than once, because some silly people will deliberately get infected. 

[SilverSolder]

[...] because some silly people will deliberately get infected. 

That's all a vaccination is, when all is said and done...

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Bill Gates' vaccine: "Resistance is futile, you will be vaccinated"