Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Sheilbh]

Such mavericks

Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours (SPI-B)
SPI-B provides advice aimed at anticipating and helping people adhere to interventions that are recommended by medical or epidemiological experts.
Professor Richard Amlôt    Public Health England
Professor Imran Awan    Birmingham City University
Professor Laura Bear    London School of Economics
Professor Chris Bonell    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Dr Ellen Brooks-Pollock    University of Bristol
Professor Val Curtis    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Professor Stephen David Reicher    University of St Andrews
Dr Laura de Moliere    Her Majesty's Government
Professor John Drury    University of Sussex
Dr Mark Egan    Behavioural Insights Team
Professor Nicola Fear    Kings College London
Dr David Halpern    Behavioural Insights Team
Mr Hugo Harper    Behavioural Insights Team
Dr Daniel Leightley    Kings College London
Professor Dame Theresa Marteau    University of Cambridge
Mr Shaun McNally    Her Majesty's Government
Professor G.J. Melendez-Torres    University of Exeter
Professor Susan Michie    University College London
Dr Gavin Morgan    University College London
DCC Paul Netherton    Devon and Cornwall Police
Mr Richard Pemberton    British Psychological Society
Dr Henry Potts    University College London
Dr Lorna Riddle    Her Majesty's Government
Professor Brooke Rogers    Kings College London
Dr James Rubin    Kings College London
Ms Kathryn Scott    British Psychological Society
Dr Louise Smith    Kings College London
Mr Hugh Stickland    Office for National Statistics
Professor Clifford Stott    Keele University
Professor Russell Viner    University College London
Dr Jo Waller    Kings College London
Professor Charlotte Watts    Chief Scientific Adviser, Department for International Development
Professor Robert West    University College London
Professor Lucy Yardley    University of Bristol

[The Minsky Moment]

And Washington shut the state down fairly quickly. Their numbers have been flat for a couple of weeks now. New York City, however, got a later start on getting the virus and shutting things down.

Washington State shut down schools on March 13, NYC on March 15.  I don't think the different experience is because of a few days.

I've already addressed some of the problems faced in NYC but a contributor is that travel with Europe was shut down very late and NYC is the biggest transit point and destination for European travel to and from the US.

I agree with the general point though that in terms of virus response the US is like 50 different countries.

[crazy canuck]

It's not a US vs New York contest.

The context of that graph was that some are trying to present the overall US numbers as having flattened, however taking away New York which stands quite apart it is still in the growth phase.

An increase in testing could be a valid argument, but usually you see sharp jumps in numbers when that happens rather than gradual curves.

It gets even worse if NYC, New Orleans and Detroit are removed from the US numbers

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/06/opinion/coronavirus-deaths-statistics.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

[crazy canuck]

Such mavericks

Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours (SPI-B)
SPI-B provides advice aimed at anticipating and helping people adhere to interventions that are recommended by medical or epidemiological experts.
Professor Richard Amlôt    Public Health England
Professor Imran Awan    Birmingham City University
Professor Laura Bear    London School of Economics
Professor Chris Bonell    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Dr Ellen Brooks-Pollock    University of Bristol
Professor Val Curtis    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Professor Stephen David Reicher    University of St Andrews
Dr Laura de Moliere    Her Majesty's Government
Professor John Drury    University of Sussex
Dr Mark Egan    Behavioural Insights Team
Professor Nicola Fear    Kings College London
Dr David Halpern    Behavioural Insights Team
Mr Hugo Harper    Behavioural Insights Team
Dr Daniel Leightley    Kings College London
Professor Dame Theresa Marteau    University of Cambridge
Mr Shaun McNally    Her Majesty's Government
Professor G.J. Melendez-Torres    University of Exeter
Professor Susan Michie    University College London
Dr Gavin Morgan    University College London
DCC Paul Netherton    Devon and Cornwall Police
Mr Richard Pemberton    British Psychological Society
Dr Henry Potts    University College London
Dr Lorna Riddle    Her Majesty's Government
Professor Brooke Rogers    Kings College London
Dr James Rubin    Kings College London
Ms Kathryn Scott    British Psychological Society
Dr Louise Smith    Kings College London
Mr Hugh Stickland    Office for National Statistics
Professor Clifford Stott    Keele University
Professor Russell Viner    University College London
Dr Jo Waller    Kings College London
Professor Charlotte Watts    Chief Scientific Adviser, Department for International Development
Professor Robert West    University College London
Professor Lucy Yardley    University of Bristol

Doesn't help if politicians won't listen to expert advice

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/15/uk-government-coronavirus-science-who-advice

[mongers]

And Washington shut the state down fairly quickly. Their numbers have been flat for a couple of weeks now. New York City, however, got a later start on getting the virus and shutting things down.

Washington State shut down schools on March 13, NYC on March 15.  I don't think the different experience is because of a few days.

I've already addressed some of the problems faced in NYC but a contributor is that travel with Europe was shut down very late and NYC is the biggest transit point and destination for European travel to and from the US.

I agree with the general point though that in terms of virus response the US is like 50 different countries.

It could be worse, the UK had 18 million transit* into our airports from January to mid March when our partial lockdown started, of those a grand total of 300 were quarantined, the large majority of those being on the four early evacuation flights out of Wuhan/China.

And remember UK airports still aren't closed, iirc there's 15-20,000 arriving a day, just that the airlines mainly closed the UK by their halting operations.

Still no temperature checks at UK airports, the 'government' is discussing the matter.

* the news report said 18million visitors, but I think the figure for total movements, plus large numbers of those wouldn't have been 'foreigners' but returning Brits as the crisis worsened.

[Sheilbh]

Doesn't help if politicians won't listen to expert advice

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/15/uk-government-coronavirus-science-who-advice

The links in that article to why the government changed their policy go to the scientific advice they were receiving from the experts. For example the March 9 SAGE paper that she points doesn't discuss continuing track-and-trace:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/874290/05-potential-impact-of-behavioural-social-interventions-on-an-epidemic-of-covid-19-in-uk-1.pdf

On that there was evidence yesterday in Parliament that they basically didn't have the testing capacity to keep it up. I've said before but I think why testing not getting ramped is one of the big questions for the government. It's their responsibility that they failed to do that, but I wouldn't be surprised if the decision to keep testing in centralised Public Health England labs was made below their paygrade. Keeping control and having things centralised is, after all, the default position for the British state (and contrast with the German virologist who said "market forces" in Germany are why they were able to increase testing) - even now when we've ramped up testing we're not really using the huge number of labs that could do it, we've kitted out three hubs that for processing tens of thousands of tests a day. I wonder if that's the best approach, feels like we might be making the same mistake again.

There's a fair question of whether they had the right advisors and whether it was broad enough, I've seen lots of criticism (from clinical and public health experts) that there are too many epidemiologists and modellers and not enough clinical or public health experts. Or if they were looking into the right things, as others have noted they were quite late at looking at lockdown options. Separately in the UK at least there seems to be quite a lot of disagreement in how to deal with this between epidemiologists (who prefer a Swedish style approach) and public health experts (who want South Korea).

But in terms of the advice, the minutes haven't been released but we can see the underlying evidence and I've still not seen anything of government going against the advice they received from SAGE (as opposed to other scientists who weren't advising them):
https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response

And in terms of what the behavioural scientists are doing, their latest work is about possible negative behaviours (which I think are a real risk) if anti-body testing becomes available for individuals:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882726/29-pre-empting-possible-negative-behavioural-responses-covid-19-antibody-testing-13042020.pdf

[Threviel]

Apparently an employee at a retirement home was diagnosed with Covid-19, didn't care and went to work anyway. 8 retirees infected so far and the woman faces charges that can lead to two years in prison.

[Barrister]

And in terms of what the behavioural scientists are doing, their latest work is about possible negative behaviours (which I think are a real risk) if anti-body testing becomes available for individuals:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882726/29-pre-empting-possible-negative-behavioural-responses-covid-19-antibody-testing-13042020.pdf

Although this article only mentions it in passing, I think if we moved to a antibody "passport" type system where people with Covid antibodies are allowed out, I expect you'd see a lot of "bug chasing" behaviour by otherwise healthy younger people deliberately seeking out infection in order to get that passport.

[alfred russel]

And in terms of what the behavioural scientists are doing, their latest work is about possible negative behaviours (which I think are a real risk) if anti-body testing becomes available for individuals:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882726/29-pre-empting-possible-negative-behavioural-responses-covid-19-antibody-testing-13042020.pdf

Although this article only mentions it in passing, I think if we moved to a antibody "passport" type system where people with Covid antibodies are allowed out, I expect you'd see a lot of "bug chasing" behaviour by otherwise healthy younger people deliberately seeking out infection in order to get that passport.

Seems like like that would be a positive...society at large wins if a larger percentage of the population has antibodies, and if people weigh the options and roll the dice, it seems as though are better off as well.

[Sheilbh]

And in terms of what the behavioural scientists are doing, their latest work is about possible negative behaviours (which I think are a real risk) if anti-body testing becomes available for individuals:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882726/29-pre-empting-possible-negative-behavioural-responses-covid-19-antibody-testing-13042020.pdf

Although this article only mentions it in passing, I think if we moved to a antibody "passport" type system where people with Covid antibodies are allowed out, I expect you'd see a lot of "bug chasing" behaviour by otherwise healthy younger people deliberately seeking out infection in order to get that passport.

Yep. I think it's a big risk - I'm not convinced by the whole immunity passport idea.

[Syt]

Neighbors seem to have a big party in their small apartment today. Colleague says he will spend his week off starting on the 18th crawling through all the pubs of Vienna.

I expect a new spike in infections mid to end of June.

[Josquius]

And in terms of what the behavioural scientists are doing, their latest work is about possible negative behaviours (which I think are a real risk) if anti-body testing becomes available for individuals:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882726/29-pre-empting-possible-negative-behavioural-responses-covid-19-antibody-testing-13042020.pdf

Although this article only mentions it in passing, I think if we moved to a antibody "passport" type system where people with Covid antibodies are allowed out, I expect you'd see a lot of "bug chasing" behaviour by otherwise healthy younger people deliberately seeking out infection in order to get that passport.

Seems like like that would be a positive...society at large wins if a larger percentage of the population has antibodies, and if people weigh the options and roll the dice, it seems as though are better off as well.

How do you figure?
Whether you're in a freak car accident or you drive like an idiot and mess up, the result is the same for the health system.
The entire point of the reaction to corona, the lockdown, etc... is nothing to do with individuals, its about protecting the health system so it can protect us all.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, I think his conclusion is based on an unwarranted assumption that people act in their rational self-interest.

[Sheilbh]

And in terms of what the behavioural scientists are doing, their latest work is about possible negative behaviours (which I think are a real risk) if anti-body testing becomes available for individuals:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882726/29-pre-empting-possible-negative-behavioural-responses-covid-19-antibody-testing-13042020.pdf

Although this article only mentions it in passing, I think if we moved to a antibody "passport" type system where people with Covid antibodies are allowed out, I expect you'd see a lot of "bug chasing" behaviour by otherwise healthy younger people deliberately seeking out infection in order to get that passport.

Seems like like that would be a positive...society at large wins if a larger percentage of the population has antibodies, and if people weigh the options and roll the dice, it seems as though are better off as well.

How do you figure?
Whether you're in a freak car accident or you drive like an idiot and mess up, the result is the same for the health system.
The entire point of the reaction to corona, the lockdown, etc... is nothing to do with individuals, its about protecting the health system so it can protect us all.

And at best you'd need to go and get infected then immediately drive to your home and self-isolate completely for at least a fortnight. Otherwise you're just making choices for everyone you come into contact with.

[Barrister]

And in terms of what the behavioural scientists are doing, their latest work is about possible negative behaviours (which I think are a real risk) if anti-body testing becomes available for individuals:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882726/29-pre-empting-possible-negative-behavioural-responses-covid-19-antibody-testing-13042020.pdf

Although this article only mentions it in passing, I think if we moved to a antibody "passport" type system where people with Covid antibodies are allowed out, I expect you'd see a lot of "bug chasing" behaviour by otherwise healthy younger people deliberately seeking out infection in order to get that passport.

Seems like like that would be a positive...society at large wins if a larger percentage of the population has antibodies, and if people weigh the options and roll the dice, it seems as though are better off as well.

Because people are shitty at assessing risk.  What's the death rate for 20-somethings who catch Covid: 1 in 200?  1 in 1000?  It would still be really, really shitty if we suddenly lost  one in one thousand of our 20-somethings.  In particular if they're doing it just so they can go out to the beach or the bar.