One recommendation I would make, buy a box of face masks and some hand sanitiser, but only buy the minimum amount you need. I found it absolutely ridiculous that some people here bought all the stock, so that they could keep themselves and their family safe for years, obviously that doesn't help prevent the spread if other people don't have access to those goods.
It seems the measures Hong Kong has taken works, with only around 160 cases so far. I was surprised how quickly it spread over in Europe.
"All types of masks reduced aerosol exposure, relatively stable over time, unaffected by duration of wear or type of activity, but with a high degree of individual variation. Personal respirators were more efficient than surgical masks, which were more efficient than home-made masks. Regardless of mask type, children were less well protected. Outward protection (mask wearing by a mechanical head) was less effective than inward protection (mask wearing by healthy volunteers)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/
"A more specialized mask, known as an N95 respirator, can protect against the new coronavirus, also called SARS-CoV-2."
From the CDC website: "If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask). Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers."
The study linked in GP seems to directly refute this.
"Overall protection factors calculated per type of mask were stable over time, and did not change statistically significant with prolonged wearing."
The quote from the CDC makes no claims about efficacy, only that supply is limited and healthcare workers should be given priority.
There is aplenty of reasons why healthy individuals should wear the masks, including:
1. They could be sick, but don't know it
2. Sick people avoid masks if healthy people don't have them
3. It could help them avoid touching their faces
That said, it’s known that you can be infected without showing symptoms. So if you only start wearing one when you show symptoms, it might be to late already.
I've been looking for these this past week in Arizona, but the shelves have been empty. I started going to all the stores I usually shop at multiple times per day to find something; its a drain on my time and probably increases my risk of getting stuff just by being outside.
They even say it themselves: "Furthermore, we should bear in mind that this is an experimental study, with relatively small numbers of volunteers, which limits the generalisability of some of our findings."
because panic isn't really helping anybody and we've never been a particular panicked bunch. Well I guess unless inflation shoots up and we get Weimar PTSD or something. Just about the only thing that seems to really scare anyone. I think the behaviour of the tech companies is mostly theatrical because they love the PR of being at the cutting edge of pandemic behaviour or whatever but these companies employ hyper-aware nerds who probably won't touch their face in the next three month so meh.
>Germany went from 20 diagnosed cases to 1600 in about a week.
We also only had two deaths or so up until now so I think the conclusion here is that the disease is severely underdiagnosed in other countries with the exception of South Korea. We were able to diagnose so many cases because we have a relatively decentralised medical infrastructure who all have relatively high capacity.
That's one possibility; the other is what is happening in Italy right now, i.e. initial 2 weeks of infections are done and now the severe cases remain and pass away. Like in South Korea 98% cases are in progress, so the outcome is not known yet and making any stats out of those is premature (i.e. too optimistic). I'd say nobody is going to shut down whole megalopolis cities if it was just a more severe flu...
I think you're putting forward a weirdly deceptive view that the two possibilities (under-diagnosis and long-dying-process) are exclusive. It seems extremely likely both factors are involved in current statistics - nothing in one excludes the other.
A nation that's systematically testing and finding all the cases will start with a lower death rate and watch it creep upward - but for the manageable number of cases they will see as they get patient quarrantine. A nation or region that's not systematically testing will have a high death and high recovery rate as they only see cases after the fact but then they'll see all cases spike, their health system overwhelmed and things in a mess (ie, Italy now, Hubei earlier).
I'm heartened that the US is now finding more cases rather than just seeing more death but clearly the US slacking on testing and surveillance.
>I'd say nobody is going to shut down whole megalopolis cities if it was just a more severe flu.
I mean a severe flu by a factor of five or so is basically what this is, it's just that this in and of itself is really, really bad because nobody has the capacity to handle that many cases.
Neither does this virus, typically. However some people end up having severe complications, as do people with the flu which is why the latter causes a few ten thousand deaths each year in the US, and half a million worldwide.
The issue here really is a matter of quantity. Covid-19 is not a mysterious super disease, but it is dangerous enough to overstress an unprepared healthcare system.
Also, if the entire population of Northern Italy was infected and mortality rate was .5%, you would be seeing 13K deaths (which isn't impossible given the situation but far from 6-700 deaths so far).
Which is to say, you're right that infection on a large scale is far more problematic than infection on a small scale but I don't think infection on a large necessarily contradicts the Diamond Princess results. A lot of people can die and it is social catastrophe even with percent of the entire population.
But I want to be clear that nothing I said above is anything like a solid prediction, just a pure back-of-the-envelope rough comparison. There's nothing I'm going to predict here.
However, R0 is not a constant. For example, with good hygiene, avoiding human contacts etc it is possible to lower the rate of average number of persons each sick person infects. If we manage to do that, the threshold for herd immunity will be lower than 60 %.
My wife and I have both led by example in both choosing to work from home early on and arguing strenuously that our employers should make WFH company/University policy (which has now happened).
Be leading by example and staying home, you make everyone else safer. If the effective R_0 can be brought below 1, the outbreak will burn out. We must show our care for those who cannot fight this virus by staying home, connecting electronically, and practicing good hygiene.
But when whole populations need to act in a concerted way, a centralized decision-making mechanism is required. Everything else is naive dreaming.
Look at Hong Kong, which spontaneously cleared the streets to fight the virus. With the protest movements, the government couldn't clear the streets. The trust in the authorities is minimal. But people chose to stay in. I have seen it suggested that this response is simply because HK remembers SARS.
Quarantines are hard to enforce with brute force. Consent of the governed will make this all way, way easier.
Once China's national government took the response seriously, the instantaneous and speedy construction of hospitals was really impressive. We see a little bit of that here in Seattle, with quarantine sites/hotels being prepared, but nothing on the scale which may be required.
I do not need a central authority to tell me to care for those around me. Furthermore, we can use our voices and examples to convince others to make choices that are likely to help others. It isn't perfect, it doesn't always work, but in this instance, I am certain that it helps.
Yes, about 1% soaking wet, with pockets full of bricks.
This anti-government religion can turn pretty dangerous in situations like this.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019...
I don’t know if Germany is magical or lucky, but assuming a 1% death rate may be a stretch. They seem to be doing far better than Italy.
I see that the numbers on the same link have now updated to today’s stats, and there have been 2 deaths and 1139 cases in Germany. It doesn’t change the point I was making in the slightest, which is that Germany has a death rate far, far below 1%.
Did you even bother to click the link?
The death rate is calculated by dead / (dead + recovered). The there are 2 deaths in Germany and 18 recoveries. That's 10%. This is probably skewed higher right now since they're not testing people with only mild symptoms.
These are the official European statistics from today. The ones from my original post were the official numbers from yesterday. These numbers are not out of date.
The source I posted always points to the most current official numbers. You should read it, instead of arguing.