Coronavirus news

[Charles Austin]

And these days, Peter, do you think it’s a good idea to withdraw funding from anybody who is trying to help the world deal with this crisis? Does everyone have to be on your political “right side” before we can help them work to combat the virus?

[Linda]

Wuhan just raised its number of virus dead by 50 percent after weeks of being accused of under-reporting those who died from cv-19.  The current WHO Director-General is a stooge for China.

Linda

[Linda]

One of the organizations that will be receiving funds previously earmarked for WHO will be Samaritan's Purse -- outstanding!

Linda

[Dave Benke]

Wuhan just raised its number of virus dead by 50 percent after weeks of being accused of under-reporting those who died from cv-19.  The current WHO Director-General is a stooge for China.

Linda

The Wuhan adjustment is not excusable either for accuracy or tardiness.  I'm not sure how that relates to the WHO, which was apparently given the same numbers as everyone else.  But it's not excusable in either dimension - number or timing. 

At the same time, as the numbers in New York City have been adjusted, in a much more timely way than Wuhan, but dramatically upward, no one should doubt their accuracy either.  Those who live here in NYC and are dealing with the massive amounts of deaths and funerals and delays in burials know that the toll of those who never got tested and/or died at home and/or died from actual complications of the virus that involve pneumonia, heart failure, etc. is if anything still under-reported.  I don't know if it was on this forum or somewhere else that there was discussion about "inflated" coronavirus death numbers.  That's a bogus claim.   And since the "revised standard version" of Wuhan deaths is accepted in its upward direction, it's in plain sight here that the upward numbers are accurate.

Dave Benke

[Charles Austin]

I seriously doubt that government funds of any size are going to be going to Samaritans purse.

[Linda]

I understand that Wuhan was caught in a terrible situation and the government instinct was to hide the extent of the catastrophe (disappearing medical people who tried to sound the alarm).  Likewise New York City is suffering (God willing, over the worst) and keeping up to date on the extent of illness and death is difficult. 

Linda

[Brian Stoffregen]

Wuhan just raised its number of virus dead by 50 percent after weeks of being accused of under-reporting those who died from cv-19.  The current WHO Director-General is a stooge for China.

New York just raised its number of virus deaths, too.

[Steven W Bohler]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Why would NYC account for about 40% of all US COVID 19 deaths, according to the CDC (Table 5)?  Is there something unique about the population, the geography, climate, preparedness, something else?  Or is it just a coincidence?  I mean the entire state of California (with a population much greater than that of NYC or even the metro NYC area) has only 452 deaths -- less than 1/10 that of NYC alone.  Is the warmer climate of California helping them with the virus?  Did California do something NYC did not?  Or is it all just chance (if a Christian can be allowed such an expression)?

[DeHall1]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Why would NYC account for about 40% of all US COVID 19 deaths, according to the CDC (Table 5)?  Is there something unique about the population, the geography, climate, preparedness, something else?  Or is it just a coincidence?  I mean the entire state of California (with a population much greater than that of NYC or even the metro NYC area) has only 452 deaths -- less than 1/10 that of NYC alone.  Is the warmer climate of California helping them with the virus?  Did California do something NYC did not?  Or is it all just chance (if a Christian can be allowed such an expression)?

I think it's a valid question.  IIRC, San Francisco has pretty much the same number of direct flights from Wuhan, China per month as New York.   You'd think the numbers would be similar.

[Dave Benke]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Why would NYC account for about 40% of all US COVID 19 deaths, according to the CDC (Table 5)?  Is there something unique about the population, the geography, climate, preparedness, something else?  Or is it just a coincidence?  I mean the entire state of California (with a population much greater than that of NYC or even the metro NYC area) has only 452 deaths -- less than 1/10 that of NYC alone.  Is the warmer climate of California helping them with the virus?  Did California do something NYC did not?  Or is it all just chance (if a Christian can be allowed such an expression)?

Some things unique about the population.  This from NYC Dept. of Planning, four years old: 
With a July 2015 population of 8,550,405, New York is the most populous city in the United States, more than twice the size of the second largest city, Los Angeles.
About 1 in every 38 people living in the United States resides in New York City.
New York has the highest population density of any major city in the United States, with over 27,000 people per square mile.
Over 3 million of New York City’s residents are foreign-born; over one-quarter arrived in 2000 or later.
Nearly 2 million New Yorkers are under the age of 18.
New York City has more people than 40 of the 50 U.S. states.

This does not take into account Metropolitan NY, which has over 14,000,000 people, also wedged in pretty tight in NY, NJ and lower CT.  And the 27000 per sq mile is low for many parkless areas. Flushing Queens is 54000 per square mile.  That's where the Mets play.  Where I live it's around 15000 psm, and where I work around 25000 psm.

So the population density of Minnesota is 72 per square mile.  Crookston is listed at 1500 per square mile (you have a college campus there).  T

I was speaking about this with a relocated Milwaukeean who has lived in Queens for a long time.  So there's a three level 20 x 70 attached home (inlcluding basement).  We have maybe 100,000 of these in the outer boroughs.  Bob gets the virus.  He lives with his wife and three others in the basement apartment.  On the first level there are six more people, and on the second level 8 more; they're mostly related.  Are we thinking because Bob stays in his room in the basement there's not high potential for transmission to some of the other 18 people?  Are you kidding? 

So it's not the same as, but it is way more like, what you find in these nursing homes or meat packing plants or Mardi Gras or Spring Break beaches with tons of people up close for extended periods.  And that's why the mitigation has had to be stunningly successful; and thanks to Brooklynite Tony Fauci and other leaders, it has been way better than could have been dreamed of a month ago.

Dave Benke 

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Why would NYC account for about 40% of all US COVID 19 deaths, according to the CDC (Table 5)?  Is there something unique about the population, the geography, climate, preparedness, something else?  Or is it just a coincidence?  I mean the entire state of California (with a population much greater than that of NYC or even the metro NYC area) has only 452 deaths -- less than 1/10 that of NYC alone.  Is the warmer climate of California helping them with the virus?  Did California do something NYC did not?  Or is it all just chance (if a Christian can be allowed such an expression)?

I think it's a valid question.  IIRC, San Francisco has pretty much the same number of direct flights from Wuhan, China per month as New York.   You'd think the numbers would be similar.

One explanation is the spread of the disease via mass transit before the full lockdown. New Yorkers use subways far more than residents of any other city, and the virus probably came to New York sooner due to international air traffic. So that city got hit first, before much was known, and the virus also spread the fastest there.

[Pr. Don Kirchner]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Why would NYC account for about 40% of all US COVID 19 deaths, according to the CDC (Table 5)?  Is there something unique about the population, the geography, climate, preparedness, something else?  Or is it just a coincidence?  I mean the entire state of California (with a population much greater than that of NYC or even the metro NYC area) has only 452 deaths -- less than 1/10 that of NYC alone.  Is the warmer climate of California helping them with the virus?  Did California do something NYC did not?  Or is it all just chance (if a Christian can be allowed such an expression)?

I think it's a valid question.  IIRC, San Francisco has pretty much the same number of direct flights from Wuhan, China per month as New York.   You'd think the numbers would be similar.

One explanation is the spread of the disease via mass transit before the full lockdown. New Yorkers use subways far more than residents of any other city, and the virus probably came to New York sooner due to international air traffic. So that city got hit first, before much was known, and the virus also spread the fastest there.

It will be interesting to see how this will affect the environmentalist position, demanding that we get out of our cars and cram into mass transit.

[Richard Johnson]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Why would NYC account for about 40% of all US COVID 19 deaths, according to the CDC (Table 5)?  Is there something unique about the population, the geography, climate, preparedness, something else?  Or is it just a coincidence?  I mean the entire state of California (with a population much greater than that of NYC or even the metro NYC area) has only 452 deaths -- less than 1/10 that of NYC alone.  Is the warmer climate of California helping them with the virus?  Did California do something NYC did not?  Or is it all just chance (if a Christian can be allowed such an expression)?

I think it's a valid question.  IIRC, San Francisco has pretty much the same number of direct flights from Wuhan, China per month as New York.   You'd think the numbers would be similar.

One explanation is the spread of the disease via mass transit before the full lockdown. New Yorkers use subways far more than residents of any other city, and the virus probably came to New York sooner due to international air traffic. So that city got hit first, before much was known, and the virus also spread the fastest there.

There are other explanations floating around. One is the possibility that the virus was actually circulating in California way last fall, and that this helped build a "herd immunity." (Calif. is the premier destination point for travelers from China.) Another is that Californians generally tend to more health conscious than many other places--much lower smoking rates, less obesity, a higher percentage of people who exercise regularly, etc. Still another (and somewhat related) is that this health consciousness has meant that Californians very quickly accepted recommendations about sheltering in place and other mitigation matters.

[readselerttoo]

I know the word "new normal" is overused, but it's the best I can think of as we project into what our 'new' future might look like.  Some imagine a painful, but ever so brief shut down, and then a world opened up again roaring to life as if nothing ever happened.

Not so quick.

In the Atlantic, one author writes:
...the only viable endgame is to play whack-a-mole with the coronavirus, suppressing it until a vaccine can be produced. With luck, that will take 18 to 24 months. During that time, new outbreaks will probably arise. Much about that period is unclear, but the dozens of experts whom I have interviewed agree that life as most people knew it cannot fully return. “I think people haven’t understood that this isn’t about the next couple of weeks,” said Michael Osterholm, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota. “This is about the next two years.”

The pandemic is not a hurricane or a wildfire. It is not comparable to Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Such disasters are confined in time and space. The SARS-CoV-2 virus will linger through the year and across the world. “Everyone wants to know when this will end,” said Devi Sridhar, a public-health expert at the University of Edinburgh. “That’s not the right question. The right question is: How do we continue?”

In the news this morning I notice that there is talk about when parts of the country may try to reopen, at least partially.  Unemployment is skyrocketing and smaller businesses are on the edge of collapse.  We cannot economically sustain an ongoing nationwide shut-down such as we have right now.  Conservatively the stay-at-home orders in some places may go until the end of next month, but that is even a long time out for people and businesses in a fragile survival state. 

Meanwhile, the medical infrastructure is struggling, not just to keep up in hard hit areas, but with supplies and drugs.  Both are running short.  Tests are badly needed, but rolling out such things often comes in fits and starts.  It's never completely smooth.  Some hospitals are overworked and many elective surgeries have been put on hold.  Economically they are being hit as well.

These problems—the continuing testing debacle, the drying supply chains, the relentless pressure on hospitals—should temper any impatience about reopening the country. There won’t be an obvious moment when everything is under control and regular life can safely resume. Even after case counts and death rates fall, the pandemic’s challenges will continue, and will not automatically subside on their own. After all, despite ample warning, the U.S. failed to anticipate what would happen when the coronavirus knocked on its door. It cannot afford to make that mistake again. Before the spring is over, it needs a plan for the summer and fall.

As we try to attempt a partial reopening, we need to determine which mitigations actually are necessary and which were most effective. We did everything all at once in the state of a pending emergency. But we can't sustain a complete shutdown indefinitely, yet we can continue mitigation efforts like social distancing and some bans on large gatherings (concerts, political rallies, etc.)

Besides testing for who has the actual virus, there are also tests coming out that will test to see who was exposed and possesses the necessary antibodies to resist the virus. Forecasts are both optimistic and pessimistic.  We just don't know what we, as a nation, look like in our blood streams.

If it turns out that, say, 20 percent of the U.S. has been infected, that would mean the coronavirus is more transmissible but less deadly than scientists think. It would also mean that a reasonable proportion of the country has some immunity. If that proportion could be slowly and safely raised to the level necessary for herd immunity—60 to 80 percent, depending on the virus’s transmissibility—the U.S. might not need to wait for a vaccine. However, if just 1 to 5 percent of the population has been infected—the range that many researchers think is likelier—that would mean “this is a truly devastating virus, and we have built up no real population immunity,” said Michael Mina, an epidemiologist and immunologist at Harvard. “Then we’re in dire straits in terms of how to move forward.”

So we can't really move forward until we know more.  At least not to a relatively normal state we knew prior to this pandemic.  Yet there is always some hope.

Now that the U.S. is slowing the pandemic, gently easing back on social distancing would be safer, Morris argues, than snapping back to business as usual when small missteps could be catastrophic. “If we’re judicious about how we lift restrictions, we might never have to go back into lockdown,” he said.

Stay-at-home orders might lift first, allowing friends and family to reunite. Small businesses could reopen with limitations: Offices might run on shifts and still rely heavily on teleworking, while restaurants and bars could create more space between tables. Schools could restart once researchers determine if children actually spread the virus.

Mass gatherings will undoubtedly be cancelled for months to come.  Think about what that means.  The sporting industry will suffer, especially as baseball ramps up in the summer.  Music and entertainment will continue to suffer as concerts are cancelled.  Large cities, whose crowded streets are always an issue, will struggle.  And yes, churches, too, will suffer.  If the number of those gathered does not rise above 50 (one number recommended), many of our mid-sized and larger churches will remain in virtual existence.  I know my usual attendance is well above that mark. 

There are so many variables that need to be coordinated and known, and we aren't there.  We're not even sure how close we are.  One danger is that we continually fall into a pattern of panic and neglect.  Working on a problem for the long-haul and developing resilience is not our forte.  We want quick solutions and instant results.  As the author concludes: "There is no going back. The only way out is through—past a turbulent spring, across an unusual summer, and into an unsettled year beyond."


The rest of the article is here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/pandemic-summer-coronavirus-reopening-back-normal/609940/

Is there anyone else here besides me that likes to play Whack-a-Mole?   

[Dave Benke]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Why would NYC account for about 40% of all US COVID 19 deaths, according to the CDC (Table 5)?  Is there something unique about the population, the geography, climate, preparedness, something else?  Or is it just a coincidence?  I mean the entire state of California (with a population much greater than that of NYC or even the metro NYC area) has only 452 deaths -- less than 1/10 that of NYC alone.  Is the warmer climate of California helping them with the virus?  Did California do something NYC did not?  Or is it all just chance (if a Christian can be allowed such an expression)?

I think it's a valid question.  IIRC, San Francisco has pretty much the same number of direct flights from Wuhan, China per month as New York.   You'd think the numbers would be similar.

One explanation is the spread of the disease via mass transit before the full lockdown. New Yorkers use subways far more than residents of any other city, and the virus probably came to New York sooner due to international air traffic. So that city got hit first, before much was known, and the virus also spread the fastest there.

Combine that with the density of population and the sheer amount of people on public transportation - trains, buses, water transport, tram - and you have the grounds for virus explosion.  And the people on public transportation now are in considerable majority non-white.

70% of the the 125000 infected in the city are non-white, mostly black and hispanic.  The death toll from my congregation/school, which is closing in on double figures, is 100% black and hispanic.  The two funerals I'm directly involved with now are going to be what's called "Direct Funerals."  No visitation.  A graveside service for less than 10 at the cemetery, which is locked except for the specific times that funerals are scheduled.  And that schedule is approximately one month after the death.  And we can't meet in person with the family.  And the congregation can't meet personally with the family members.

That's why when NYC is "open" again, you will see a lot of that combination of grief and celebration in churches, as they are able to once again receive the Sacrament and practice the close communion of the Body which we not only so enjoy, but so need.

Dave Benke