Corona Virus: It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint

[Smoove_B]

I'd seen mention of theoretical monitoring of larger cities using the sewage treatment plants as sentinel sites earlier in this collective nightmare, but I hadn't seen it specifically applied like this. It must be a very specific situation where they know they're collecting/treating waste from the campus and not the surrounding area. It's interesting and potentially useful, but I don't think it scales out. It still supports the idea then that we possibly should be monitoring raw sewage in major metropolitan areas for evidence a potential outbreak is looming.

[Daehawk]

They can take our freeeeeedom! But they can never take our septic tanks!!

[stessier]

Well this is surprising - perhaps SC's positivity rate is actually artificially high??? TL;DR - some labs were only told to report positive results.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control is not reporting tens of thousands of coronavirus test results, according to records the agency released and information WYFF News 4 Investigates obtained from the labs that report those results to DHEC.

Missing positive or negative test results would impact the “percent positive” DHEC reports on a daily basis. The percent positive indicates the percentage of overall tests done that yield a positive result.

That figure is also issued weekly as one way to help determine community spread and is one of the metrics school districts across South Carolina use to decide how many children will attend in-person classes.

Missing negative tests would drive the percent positive higher. Missing positive results would make the figure appear lower than it is.

WYFF News 4 Investigates requested lab-specific data from DHEC on July 16. It was compiled and provided more than one month later.

The records show DHEC has collected positive and negative results from at least 219 labs and health organizations.

The records show 97 of the labs reporting test results have a positive result rate higher than 50 percent, and at least four of the labs told WYFF News 4 Investigates the figures DHEC provided do not accurately portray the tests they have processed for South Carolinians.

DHEC records for one of the labs show it has submitted fewer than 4,000 tests, all but 33 positive.

But according to an executive at that lab, DHEC’s numbers do not include tens of thousands of test results – 4,627 positive and 32,859 negative.

Adding the unaccounted-for results from the single lab would drop the percent positive by one-tenth of a percent.

The executive said DHEC told the lab to only submit positive results.

Another executive from a different lab echoed that directive.

The records DHEC provided WYFF News 4 Investigates list his lab as having 1,139 positive tests out of 1,161 tests performed – 98.1 percent positive.

He said the percent positive for tests done in South Carolina by his lab was at 9 percent or lower each month since May, nearly a 90 percent difference from the figure in the DHEC report.

The DHEC records show Bon Secours has reported 1,477 positive test results and 36 negative results.

“At Bon Secours St. Francis, we only report positive test results,” said communications manager Jennifer Robinson. “Our chief clinical officer can confirm our positivity rates are dramatically lower than those currently shown by the DHEC.”

Along with those three businesses, WYFF News 4 Investigates found four more instances where a lab submitted more than 1,000 positive results, and fewer than 100 negative results for that lab were entered.

A spokeswoman for the health agency said private labs were not required to report negative results in early March. But by March 26, DHEC told the labs they needed to begin providing negative results as well.

DHEC considers COVID-19 an urgently reportable condition, meaning labs are required to report results within 24 hours of the result being available.

The data released by DHEC shows more than half of all of the test results reported in South Carolina have come through Lab Corp or DHEC’s own lab.

The positive rate for those two entities is 10.5 percent.

The data, while mostly separated by company, also includes an “other” section. It accounts for nearly 36,000 tests, more than 15,000 of them positive.

DHEC reports 15.6 percent of all tests statewide were positive, as of Aug. 26.

I've been very hesitant to trust the data we've been getting - but maybe for the wrong reason.

[El Guapo]

I see that Massachusetts has promoted PA, WV, and CO to "low risk states", so congratulations to them. But RI and HI have been demoted to higher risk states.

[Skinypupy]

University of Alabama has more than 1,000 test positive since Aug 19.

Of course, staff were explicitly instructed to keep it quiet and make sure they didn't tell anyone. Because if you don't tell anyone, it doesn't exist, apparently.

Faculty in multiple departments said they received emails this week telling them not to discuss the situation in classrooms and to keep students in the dark if they became aware of anyone contracting the virus, according to an exclusive report by The Daily Beast.

“Do not tell the rest of the class,” the email reads, with the word “not” underlined, the Beast reported.

Face masks and social distancing, the email states, would mitigate any exposure risk if infected students were actually in the classroom. The memo also warned faculty not to post anything about the matter on social media, claiming that would violate federal privacy laws, the Beast reported.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Well this is surprising - perhaps SC's positivity rate is actually artificially high??? TL;DR - some labs were only told to report positive results.

Wow. Depending on how many labs that might affect, seems like that would make a huge difference. Did DHEC not notice when some labs had 90+% positivity rates??

[The Meal]

I see that Massachusetts has promoted PA, WV, and CO to "low risk states", so congratulations to them. But RI and HI have been demoted to higher risk states.

[Kraken]

I see that Massachusetts has promoted PA, WV, and CO to "low risk states", so congratulations to them. But RI and HI have been demoted to higher risk states.

Our positive test rate is down to 1%. That's an achievement we don't want to squander.

[El Guapo]

I see that Massachusetts has promoted PA, WV, and CO to "low risk states", so congratulations to them. But RI and HI have been demoted to higher risk states.

Our positive test rate is down to 1%. That's an achievement we don't want to squander.

I just hope those damn college kids don't ruin it for us.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[stessier]

Well this is surprising - perhaps SC's positivity rate is actually artificially high??? TL;DR - some labs were only told to report positive results.

Wow. Depending on how many labs that might affect, seems like that would make a huge difference. Did DHEC not notice when some labs had 90+% positivity rates??

That's what I was wondering. How is the newspaper the first person to look at this? I mean, if that many places had rates over 50%, there would be people dying in waiting rooms which you would think would make the news. DHEC has some explaining to do. As do the hospitals, actually. They knew what they were reporting - why did they not make a stink about it??

[gilraen]

Iowa reported 79% positivity rate. Their governor claims it's because earlier antigen tests were added to the count. So with the numbers being shuffled around to suit whichever political office is drawing the straws that day, are the numbers even meaningful enough to do any comparisons?

[Smoove_B]

I definitely need to read up on what's happening in Iowa as the numbers sounded wacky. If they're only testing people that are symptomatic and in need of medical attention (essentially confirming a doctor's physical examination and diagnosis) then I'd expect to see insanely high positivity numbers. That's what was happening in NY/NJ early on, and it was only after testing widely expanded and the bar for testing was lowered that the positivity rate started dropping.

NJ is still hovering just below 1.0 Rt, which is more or less what I'd expect at this point (fluctuating just above or just below 1.0). However, schools are starting to ramp up and should all be open by 9/8. Gyms are going to re-open at reduced capacity starting next week and I expect indoor dining to resume by 9/15. Circulating virus levels are low, but we're setting up scenarios that encourage spreading events. I can only hope statewide surveillance is fully operational and ready to jump on data suggesting another outbreak is eminent.

I did just this morning finally see lots people in my part of the state (NW corner) on social media confirming my suspicions regarding travel. They've been regularly crossing into NY and PA over the few weeks or so to enjoy indoor dining.

Did I mention how important surveillance is?

[Smoove_B]

I see the Trump administration feels they haven't done enough damage to the perception of public health and vaccine safety yet:

The head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is willing to fast-track a COVID-19 vaccine as quickly as possible, the Financial Times reported him as saying in an interview published on Sunday.

Dr. Stephen Hahn, the FDA Commissioner, said his agency was prepared to authorize a vaccine before Phase Three clinical trials were complete, as long as officials are convinced that the benefits outweigh the risks, the newspaper reported

No, no, no. Until they can scientifically demonstrate safety (through trials), this is a terrible idea. It would appear my sources were right - they're likely going to push through an EUA closer to the election and the Trump administration will declare victory. This is unthinkable.

[$iljanus]

'... as long as officials are convinced that the benefits outweigh the risks, "

I would guess the officials who are weighing in happen to be in the White House.

I would post something witty and snarky but the long term implications depress me too much.

[Blackhawk]

Trump is actually going to make me an anti-vaxxer, isn't he?

[Isgrimnur]

Trump is actually going to make me an anti-vaxxer, isn't he?

You're only disbelieving in one.

[Jaymon]

Trump is actually going to make me an anti-vaxxer, isn't he?

declining to eat roadkill doesn't make you a vegetarian

[gameoverman]

Trump is actually going to make me an anti-vaxxer, isn't he?

Trump hasn't cared about dealing with this pandemic, so I doubt he cares about a vaccine except as a tool to win the election. Look at it from his point of view. If he can give the people some good news "A vaccine is ready to go!" before the election, that will earn him extra votes from people who might otherwise be angry at the state of the country. If skipping safety checks has severe consequences it doesn't matter to him because that won't be known until after the election when it won't matter how many people die or how mad the public gets or how useless the vaccine turns out to be.

[Defiant]

Dr. Stephen Hahn, the FDA Commissioner, said his agency was prepared to authorize a vaccine before Phase Three clinical trials were complete, as long as officials are convinced that the benefits outweigh the risks, the newspaper reported

I assume the benefits mentioned pertain to Trump's reelection chances.

[Skinypupy]

According to MIT, between 45-60% of the Twitter accounts pushing to "reopen America" are bots.

Kathleen M. Carley and her team at Carnegie Mellon University’s Center for Informed Democracy & Social Cybersecurity have been tracking bots and influence campaigns for a long time. Across US and foreign elections, natural disasters, and other politicized events, the level of bot involvement is normally between 10 and 20%, she says.

But in a new study, the researchers have found that bots may account for between 45 and 60% of Twitter accounts discussing covid-19. Many of those accounts were created in February and have since been spreading and amplifying misinformation, including false medical advice, conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus, and pushes to end stay-at-home orders and reopen America.

They follow well-worn patterns of coordinated influence campaigns, and their strategy is already working: since the beginning of the crisis, the researchers have observed a greater polarization in Twitter discourse around the topic.

[Unagi]

Trump is actually going to make me an anti-vaxxer, isn't he?

declining to eat roadkill doesn't make you a vegetarian

Well said.

[El Guapo]

This is...incredible.

https://twitter.com/KT_So_It_Goes/statu ... 2465858560

[malchior]

Herd immunity is back on the menu. I snipped the article but the selection ends with a NYU professor talking about one of the serious hurdles is a lot of people will die. He is not apply the long-term math IMO. This will only get implemented if Trump stays in power. He is a psychopath and it'll kill black and brown people. Something Trump will more than tolerate, so we don't just need Trump to lose to preserve our democracy...we need it to keep the most people alive possible.

One of President Donald Trump's top medical advisers is urging the White House to embrace a controversial "herd immunity" strategy to combat the pandemic, which would entail allowing the coronavirus to spread through most of the population to quickly build resistance to the virus, while taking steps to protect those in nursing homes and other vulnerable populations, according to five people familiar with the discussions.

The administration has already begun to implement some policies along these lines, according to current and former officials as well as experts, particularly with regard to testing.

The approach's chief proponent is Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist from Stanford's conservative Hoover Institution, who joined the White House earlier this month as a pandemic adviser. He has advocated that the United States adopt the model Sweden has used to respond to the virus outbreak, according to these officials, which relies on lifting restrictions so the healthy can build up immunity to the disease rather than limiting social and business interactions to prevent the virus from spreading.

Sweden's handling of the pandemic has been heavily criticized by public health officials and infectious-disease experts as reckless - the country has among the highest infection and death rates in the world. It also hasn't escaped the deep economic problems resulting from the pandemic.

But Sweden's approach has gained support among some conservatives who argue that social distancing restrictions are crushing the economy and infringing on people's liberties.

That this approach is even being discussed inside the White House is drawing concern from experts inside and outside the government who note that a herd immunity strategy could lead to the country suffering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lost lives.

"The administration faces some pretty serious hurdles in making this argument. One is a lot of people will die, even if you can protect people in nursing homes," said Paul Romer, a professor at New York University who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2018. "Once it's out in the community, we've seen over and over again, it ends up spreading everywhere."

[Smoove_B]

Between this news and the apparent effort to try and communicate that people aren't really dying of COVID but heart disease or pnuemonia, I'm genuinely concerned. This is absolutely a communication / information war at this point and based on the antivax movement of the last 12+ years, I fear it's not going to end well. Once again, I marvel at the wisdom of Carl Sagan.

[El Guapo]

Between this news and the apparent effort to try and communicate that people aren't really dying of COVID but heart disease or pnuemonia, I'm genuinely concerned. This is absolutely a communication / information war at this point and based on the antivax movement of the last 12+ years, I fear it's not going to end well. Once again, I marvel at the wisdom of Carl Sagan.

I also strongly suspect that part of the "people aren't really dying of COVID" messaging is to communicate that the only people dying of COVID are those that 'deserve' it. Basically "hey Trump voter, maybe you're concerned, but you're ok because you are virtuous and independent and are taking care of yourself. The only people dying are lazy brown & black people who were unhealthy anyway because of poor life choices that they made."

[Alefroth]

Herd immunity is back on the menu.

Seems like that's all we've been eating the last several months.

[malchior]

Between this news and the apparent effort to try and communicate that people aren't really dying of COVID but heart disease or pnuemonia, I'm genuinely concerned. This is absolutely a communication / information war at this point and based on the antivax movement of the last 12+ years, I fear it's not going to end well. Once again, I marvel at the wisdom of Carl Sagan.

I also strongly suspect that part of the "people aren't really dying of COVID" messaging is to communicate that the only people dying of COVID are those that 'deserve' it. Basically "hey Trump voter, maybe you're concerned, but you're ok because you are virtuous and independent and are taking care of yourself. The only people dying are lazy brown & black people who were unhealthy anyway because of poor life choices that they made."

Or the subtext that it is because that is what God wants is going to start seeping in. There are no lows that we can't assume these monsters will sink to.

FWIW I saw a lot of talk about conservatives hammering this morning on 'dying of' instead of 'dying with' as if the human body is some non-integrated system. It was everywhere and it definitely has all the hallmarks of information warfare. As posted above by Skinypupy you don't see 45-60% of the accounts pushing to 'reopen America' be bots unless you have a major operation behind it. It is very hard to run that big a botnet and evade the controls that identify botnets. It requires state level participation -- state level now includes the very biggest corporations fwiw.

[Alefroth]

FWIW I saw a lot of talk about conservatives hammering this morning on 'dying of' instead of 'dying with' as if the human body is some non-integrated system.

I've seen that too. Someone claimed that the CDC is now saying only 9000 deaths strictly from COVID.

Not surprised the Gateway Pundit is at the root of it-

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/statu ... 2544999424

[malchior]

Gateway Pundit backed by Russian influence networks is probably more like it.

[Smoove_B]

Picking up chatter that hospitals are being told they're going to be distribution sites for COVID vaccinations in November and they should prepare. Apparently the October surprise is early.

NOTE: While I can't speak for what other states do, in NJ hospitals are not designated as mass vaccination sites during an emergency. This would be coordinated through the State Dept. of Health and the county/local OEM agencies - typically at larger, outdoor locations where large volumes of people could be handled. Very similar to how the COVID testing centers were created with the help of the NJ National Guard (and others).

The idea that someone would try to steer thousands of people into a hospital complex for vaccinations in October/November is insane - and not just because there's no way a safe vaccine will be released in October.

[Enough]

Picking up chatter that hospitals are being told they're going to be distribution sites for COVID vaccinations in November and they should prepare. Apparently the October surprise is early.

NOTE: While I can't speak for what other states do, in NJ hospitals are not designated as mass vaccination sites during an emergency. This would be coordinated through the State Dept. of Health and the county/local OEM agencies - typically at larger, outdoor locations where large volumes of people could be handled. Very similar to how the COVID testing centers were created with the help of the NJ National Guard (and others).

The idea that someone would try to steer thousands of people into a hospital complex for vaccinations in October/November is insane - and not just because there's no way a safe vaccine will be released in October.

Prepare for mass gas-lighting that librrrulls are the real anti-vaxxers!

[Grifman]

I see the Trump administration feels they haven't done enough damage to the perception of public health and vaccine safety yet:

The head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is willing to fast-track a COVID-19 vaccine as quickly as possible, the Financial Times reported him as saying in an interview published on Sunday.

Dr. Stephen Hahn, the FDA Commissioner, said his agency was prepared to authorize a vaccine before Phase Three clinical trials were complete, as long as officials are convinced that the benefits outweigh the risks, the newspaper reported

No, no, no. Until they can scientifically demonstrate safety (through trials), this is a terrible idea. It would appear my sources were right - they're likely going to push through an EUA closer to the election and the Trump administration will declare victory. This is unthinkable.

This is insane - you can't know the benefits outweigh the risks until the testing is done - that's the whole point of the testing. If anything, this would make many people even less likely to take the vaccine, including me and I am as pro-vaccine as they come.

[Kraken]

I see the Trump administration feels they haven't done enough damage to the perception of public health and vaccine safety yet:

The head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is willing to fast-track a COVID-19 vaccine as quickly as possible, the Financial Times reported him as saying in an interview published on Sunday.

Dr. Stephen Hahn, the FDA Commissioner, said his agency was prepared to authorize a vaccine before Phase Three clinical trials were complete, as long as officials are convinced that the benefits outweigh the risks, the newspaper reported

No, no, no. Until they can scientifically demonstrate safety (through trials), this is a terrible idea. It would appear my sources were right - they're likely going to push through an EUA closer to the election and the Trump administration will declare victory. This is unthinkable.

This is insane - you can't know the benefits outweigh the risks until the testing is done - that's the whole point of the testing. If anything, this would make many people even less likely to take the vaccine, including me and I am as pro-vaccine as they come.

The vaccine will most likely be limited to a small group, since it's still experimental. Just as Putin's testing his on military personnel, trump will inject school teachers, first responders, hospital personnel, etc. He just needs campaign points. Whether or not it's safe and effective is a secondary consideration.

I'm concerned about how prematurely picking a winner will affect other trials. Will companies continue them if all that government money is already destined for someone else's pocket?

[malchior]

The vaccine will most likely be limited to a small group, since it's still experimental. Just as Putin's testing his on military personnel, trump will inject school teachers, first responders, hospital personnel, etc. He just needs campaign points. Whether or not it's safe and effective is a secondary consideration.

I'm concerned about how prematurely picking a winner will affect other trials. Will companies continue them if all that government money is already destined for someone else's pocket?

You're touching on something that brings up a tangent that I wonder about. What pharma company is going to release some rushed vaccine out the door? They are pretty risk averse. And why? To satisfy some unstable autocrat? Good luck with the endless lawsuits if it goes south. I think it is way more likely to be some magic trick or lip service than an actual roll out.

[Smoove_B]

The vaccine will most likely be limited to a small group, since it's still experimental. Just as Putin's testing his on military personnel, trump will inject school teachers, first responders, hospital personnel, etc. He just needs campaign points. Whether or not it's safe and effective is a secondary consideration.

This kind of plan already sort of exists (at least in NJ) where in the event of a vaccine shortage during a communicable disease outbreak, there are identified tiers that will be prioritized to receive the limited supply. So yes, first responders, medical staff, police, fire, people working in infrastructure, etc... all would get a shot before grandma.

Shortly after 9/11 when they started the smallpox vaccinations in anticipation of bioterror, I was part of the tail end of the first wave that should have been vaccinated (long after doctors, nurses). However, just before the vaccinations began, doctors and nurses started asking about liability and whether or not medical bills would be covered associated with any complications from the vaccination, along with what would happen to their families and next of kin if they died as a result of submitting to the vaccination.

And that's where the vaccination program ended.

My point her overall is that the people that would likely be prioritized to receive it are likely the ones that we shouldn't be risking. The whole thing is absurd!

[malchior]

Shortly after 9/11 when they started the smallpox vaccinations in anticipation of bioterror, I was part of the tail end of the first wave that should have been vaccinated (long after doctors, nurses). However, just before the vaccinations began, doctors and nurses started asking about liability and whether or not medical bills would be covered associated with any complications from the vaccination, along with what would happen to their families and next of kin if they died as a result of submitting to the vaccination.

And that's where the vaccination program ended.

Interesting. Kind of puts an exclamation point on what I was wondering about.

[LawBeefaroni]

The vaccine will most likely be limited to a small group, since it's still experimental. Just as Putin's testing his on military personnel, trump will inject school teachers, first responders, hospital personnel, etc. He just needs campaign points. Whether or not it's safe and effective is a secondary consideration.

I'm concerned about how prematurely picking a winner will affect other trials. Will companies continue them if all that government money is already destined for someone else's pocket?

For tested vaccines in short supply, maybe. But you aren't going to get first responders, and certainly not hospital staff, to be guinea pigs for a rushed and untested vaccine. And because they are the bulwark against a pandemic it will be hard to force them.

[Smoove_B]

Interesting. Kind of puts an exclamation point on what I was wondering about.

Yup. And for the record, the smallpox vaccination is scientifically/medically safe. However, of all the vaccines that could be administered it poses the highest rate of potential complications (for the recipient and potentially members based on bandage compliance).

And it's for that reason that medical staff in NJ (and elsewhere) started questioning what was happening. Expecting them to take an untested newly developed vaccine that the Trump administration blasted through approvals in time for an election? GTFO.

[malchior]

Yeah. No one should take it and any executive who approves it should be sued by their stockholders. It's madness. Maybe they'll decree them liability free or some craziness.

[Freyland]

The vaccine will most likely be limited to a small group, since it's still experimental. Just as Putin's testing his on military personnel, trump will inject school teachers, first responders, hospital personnel, etc. He just needs campaign points. Whether or not it's safe and effective is a secondary consideration.

I'm concerned about how prematurely picking a winner will affect other trials. Will companies continue them if all that government money is already destined for someone else's pocket?

For tested vaccines in short supply, maybe. But you aren't going to get first responders, and certainly not hospital staff, to be guinea pigs for a rushed and untested vaccine. And because they are the bulwark against a pandemic it will be hard to force them.

As a doctor, uh, yeah....no.