Cities with big protests didn't see an increase in Covid. Theory is an increase from protests and a decrease from other people staying home to avoid the protests. https://www.inquirer.com/health/cor...g-surge-in-states-that-reopened-20200627.html States in the South and West that reopened their economies early and with few precautions are now grappling with huge surges in daily case counts, hospitalizations, and deaths. Yet Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and other cities across the country have not seen the sharp, sustained spikes that were expected after hundreds of thousands of people gathered for protests against police brutality. ... The leading theory to explain this paradox is that being outdoors is safer than indoors. Numerous studies support this. Japanese researchers, for example, found the odds of indoor transmission of the coronavirus were about 19 times greater than in the open air. But a new study funded by the National Bureau of Economic Research offers another explanation: The protests prompted an overall increase in people staying home, which mostly offset any impact of transmission among protesters. “This is consistent with avoidance behavior,” said Andrew Friedson, a health economist at the University of Colorado, Denver and co-author of the paper. “These protests are large gatherings which are likely to spread the disease. But if there’s an offsetting behavior — an increase in social distancing — then that may have caused the overall spread to stay flat or even go down a bit.” The researchers used cell-phone tracking data from Safegraph to see what percentage of the population did not leave home in big cities with protests, compared with cities that didn’t have protests. The results clearly linked an increase in stay-at-home behavior to the civil unrest. Curfews played a part in this behavior but did not completely account for it.
los angeles a spike among young people possibly fueling it, scary stuff https://www.latimes.com/california/...ase-surge-rising-infections-in-younger-people
California’s spike in number of COVID-19 cases being fueled by rising infections in younger people As of Wednesday, 56% of people diagnosed with COVID-19 were 18 to 49 years old, though they account for only 43.5% of the state’s population. That figure has risen consistently throughout the outbreak but surged sharply in recent weeks. Meanwhile, people older than 65, who used to make up nearly a quarter of those testing positive for COVID-19, now account for fewer than 15% of positive coronavirus tests
This shed some light into why the antibody tests were so unreliable. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federa...20-06-25/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7d&linkId=92064279 Fraudulent tests flooded the market. Hundreds and hundreds of tests taken by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people," says the Illinois Democrat. All companies had to do to get their tests to the U.S. market was state they were self-validated. "When you open the floodgates to virtually any product being sold by anybody, well, guess what? Shysters, scam artists, and people who are preying on unsuspecting consumers enter the fray," says Krishnamoorthi It took almost three months before the FDA started pulling tests off the market, but by then, many American municipalities had already used the tests to determine whether they could send essential workers like EMTs, policemen and firemen back to work. One of the more than 40 tests removed by the FDA was the one Dr. Gonzalez prevented from being used in Laredo. Suppose he hadn't tested them? "We wouldn't have a true indicator of the level of infection. The public deserves for us to give them something that's valid," he tells Alfonsi.
Exactly. I dont believe in any population antibody test study yet when the ones used mostly are the finger pricks who have cross sensitivity with other coronaviruses .
When I asked about this yesterday I was told they do not know. Initially they believed asymptotic people were less dangerous due to viral load but recently they have started to doubt this to be true.
Looks like the medical center icu capacity data is no longer available? I’m just getting an error page not found. https://www.tmc.edu/coronavirus-updates/tmc-icu-bed-capacity-modeling/
Well its the facts! Its not available therefore out of sight out of mind! Its not a fact since it doesnt exist! Everything is well!
TMC.edu says this today Yesterday, the TMC posted an incomplete slide deck in order to allow time to fully develop a number of new slides. The new slides as well as a number of updated slides that were absent yesterday will be released later today. Collectively, they will provide a more comprehensive and accurate description of the current status. I think they're reworking the slides to make it clear that '100%' base icu occupancy doesn't mean that new patients cannot be cared for. Elective surgeries are being wound down and surge capacity protocols are being implemented. I think they don't want to scare off people that need immediate care from going to the hospital.
A reporter Tweeted that the numbers were being withheld to make the state look better (or something) and Mayor Turner re-Tweeted it. Probably just hearsay though.
It was fake news that the TMC was out of capacity. The hospital CEOs even corrected that statement on Friday, but that news didn't get propagated by the media. Capacity can be expanded, as seen above.
Important to point out that adding more ICU units is not cheap, fast or easy. When you add in the lost revenue from cutting elective procedures, it's a serious drain to any hospital. Resources aren't unlimited and people get burned out. Source: me, day job at a major, level 1 trauma center hospital. This has been how we've been going since COVID-19 really started to ramp up.
