|
Post by rmcalhoun on Sept 22, 2020 8:40:31 GMT -6
with having young kids who have practices friends and lives I find myself out alot. I'm out running far more than I'm at home. People are deff masking in retail public settings. People are deff not masking at practices/games or gatherings of 10-20 people
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 22, 2020 9:52:35 GMT -6
with having young kids who have practices friends and lives I find myself out alot. I'm out running far more than I'm at home. People are deff masking in retail public settings. People are deff not masking at practices/games or gatherings of 10-20 people Yes the retail and other public settings are actually observing mitigation strategy better than expected in the community. Not great, not enough to really control and outbreak, but good enough to slow it down, hold it down to a (barely) acceptable level right now.
Groups of 10-20 outside with air moving and some social distance are not really high risk. Worry about larger groups, like wedding receptions indoors and parties indoors are going to be the test.
The interesting things about your experience with the sports is that the kids are unlikely to show symptoms and the parents in your age group still relatively young. Have you noticed any fall off in attendance or difference in behavior at games apart from masks?
The issue there is probably whether grandparents are included in the activity and exposed to the kids and whether those parents who might become sick would have sense enough not to show up.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Sept 22, 2020 11:03:06 GMT -6
Metro attendance is about the same as always couple hundred per game. The 5th and 6th graders play at Delta High school so the bleachers there gives people a chance to spread out. The younger kids play at royerton which is a smaller venue people are deff closer. Mask wearing is supposed to happen and it is announced but after that its not enforced. You just can not enforce it.. Metro is still running around 2000 people through both venues each Saturday.
As for my team we had to quarantine one of my coaches and his kids for two weeks. We had one kid who we were told should be in quarantine and was not in school but when we approached the parent he said it was not true(probably lying) again no way to enforce it. Had it been a Delta kid we would have known but it was muncie city kid.
I can tell you with out a doubt there is a lot of hush hush rule bending going on in all school systems depending on who you know and how you initially react and call.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Sept 22, 2020 11:25:23 GMT -6
There is a real stigma about being positive and family's are being vilified for getting sick. No one wants to be the family who got the class quarantined or made the sports team miss some games. Some times its parents ignoring the rules so there kid can play. Whats happening more is your just seeing people disappear for a couple weeks with no questions being asked. Parent or kid gets symptoms but no one ever gets tested then you just hole up for 14 days and come back like nothing happened. You call the proper person and get "clearance" and it works out just fine for everyone. I know for a fact that this is the grey area local schools are acting in. Now if your kid gets sent home and the above bending is not correctly the situation is handled as the book says that day.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Sept 22, 2020 12:01:38 GMT -6
Some of the "symptoms" can be a lot of other things. Headaches especially. I get a headache about once a week, but I'm not going to run out for a COVID test every time.
Some mornings I feel like crap, but it's probably the excess amount of bourbon I had the night before. Or just because I'm old as hell.
COVID has such a wide range of symptoms that a minor case, with minor symptoms, could easily be attributed to a number of other ailments.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Sept 22, 2020 12:05:24 GMT -6
Some of the "symptoms" can be a lot of other things. Headaches especially. I get a headache about once a week, but I'm not going to run out for a COVID test every time. Some mornings I feel like crap, but it's probably the excess amount of bourbon I had the night before. Or just because I'm old as hell. COVID has such a wide range of symptoms that a minor case, with minor symptoms, could easily be attributed to a number of other ailments. I fully agree with you... young kids who always have a sniffle now have to stay home for two weeks.. I have covid symptoms three times a week its just a mess
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 22, 2020 13:16:17 GMT -6
If you apply the CDC "rule of thumb" that for every positive test there are another 9 that go unreported, the 5% of the student population who tested positive would mean 50% actually had it. Add in those with natural immunity from being exposed to in their past to other Coronaviruses and Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) has been reached on campus. You know I was going there, right? We know where you are coming from. But. You are making a lot of assumptions.
Sounds like confirmation bias to me though. You want to believe your conclusion and seize on data that seems to confirm it. In and earlier post you made the same claim based on data from elsewhere and yet we are not seeing the virus disappear in those cases.
You mention above a lot of factors that might apply and explain the numbers we see, and we don't know data on very many of them. We older members of the community are part of a herd...but the alternate explanation of mitigation practice is adequate to explain the good results so far in our cases.
Regaring your herd immunity theory generally, neither of these two influences you assume to be true (prior immunity and widespread infection by Covid) are documented.
1. We actually know prior infection is not proven to be a completely reliable barrier to active second infection. In some cases those second infections are actually worse than the first exposure.
What makes the data very tricky in college communities is that in the predominantly young age group population often doesn't have short terms symptoms and that the real danger of severe symptoms in the older part of the college community is mitigated by good on campus social distance and mask use.
2. That 10X estimate is not exactly a proven estimate in this population. The rule of thumb was used in a different context based on old data when testing was even more limited than it is now, and is not quite so simple to apply. The math is apparently not so straight forward as you assume.
The number of actual confirmed cases today is 3 or 4 times that at the time the Redfield estimate was made. Using the same estimate the same way now would assume testing is similar now as to the early days and other factors are the same. Neither is a good assumption. The study was covering NY and California cases in the relatively early days of the outbreak. The difference in testing data available in any given region or population means that June estimate of 10X cannot be reliably used in any given population.
But, if you insist we do that as you are doing in your estimate, we'd come up with perhaps a 20% figure for those previously infected at the present. NOT 50% which you claim.
Different schools have had different results when they have data.
No doubt higher than 5% of the students may have been infected. How much more we cannot know until we get a random sample of all students which BSU is not trying to do.
3. The actual experience on college campuses varies. The variation is likely related to the degree of observance of distancing, quarantine and tracking and other indications NOT any herd immunity difference. I can think of no reason our "herd" would be different, but our practices and living conditions are conceivably different.
Most important conclusions to draw are that we do not have good data and testing at BSU and that the apparent stability is tricky to evaluate given all the variables.
The problem with preaching herd immunity is that it might reduce the use of other mitigation with tragic results. The mitigation we know works is that used successfully in Europe and the Far East. BSU leveling the curve, reducing the daily infections reported is completely consistent with fair to good mitigation and of course a lack of random testing data.
Only if you assume a number of somewhat doubtful things is it even consistent with a herd immunity. And then only in young relatively homogeneous populations. Let's wait for random testing data before we draw those conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 22, 2020 13:19:19 GMT -6
Some of the "symptoms" can be a lot of other things. Headaches especially. I get a headache about once a week, but I'm not going to run out for a COVID test every time. Some mornings I feel like crap, but it's probably the excess amount of bourbon I had the night before. Or just because I'm old as hell. COVID has such a wide range of symptoms that a minor case, with minor symptoms, could easily be attributed to a number of other ailments. I fully agree with you... young kids who always have a sniffle now have to stay home for two weeks.. I have covid symptoms three times a week its just a mess If you are a school administrator you have adopt better safe than sorry, and you just have to do enough to CYA. Probably you will also look the other way too much. At least until we see a real outbreak with severe illness in that outbreak for more than 1 or 2 kids. Then you will see shutdown.
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Sept 22, 2020 14:19:58 GMT -6
We know where you are coming from. But. You are making a lot of assumptions.
Sounds like confirmation bias to me though. You want to believe your conclusion and seize on data that seems to confirm it. In and earlier post you made the same claim based on data from elsewhere and yet we are not seeing the virus disappear in those cases.
You mention above a lot of factors that might apply and explain the numbers we see, and we don't know data on very many of them. We older members of the community are part of a herd...but the alternate explanation of mitigation practice is adequate to explain the good results so far in our cases.
Regaring your herd immunity theory generally, neither of these two influences you assume to be true (prior immunity and widespread infection by Covid) are documented.
1. We actually know prior infection is not proven to be a completely reliable barrier to active second infection. In some cases those second infections are actually worse than the first exposure.
Herd immunity doesn't mean a virus totally disappears. It doesn't mean everyone in the herd has immunity. It means enough have it to slow the spread of the virus. There will still be a background level of infections. I kept attempting to give you data instead of opinions. To me data supporting a hypothesis is better than biased opinions which you seem to respond with. You are never going to believe me, but here's the abstract of a recent paper by a scientist, Sunetra Gupta, an infectious disease epidemiologist and professor at the University of Oxford, England. From her paper's abstract: "It is widely believed that the herd immunity threshold (HIT) required to prevent a resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 is in excess of 50% for any epidemiological setting. Here, we demonstrate that HIT may be greatly reduced if a fraction of the population is unable to transmit the virus due to innate resistance or cross-protection from exposure to seasonal coronaviruses. The drop in HIT is proportional to the fraction of the population resistant only when that fraction is effectively segregated from the general population; however, when mixing is random, the drop in HIT is more precipitous. Significant reductions in expected mortality can also be observed in settings where a fraction of the population is resistant to infection. These results help to explain the large degree of regional variation observed in seroprevalence and cumulative deaths and suggest that sufficient herd-immunity may already be in place to substantially mitigate a potential second wave." www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15.20154294v1I'm assuming you will attack it, and her, because it hasn't been peer reviewed yet. Here's a question for you. Have you ever wondered why there is such a wide range of severity for Covid-19? I have. At first I thought it was because of various mutations of the virus, some stronger than others. But if that were the case, I think you would see clusters of really deadly cases and other clusters of mild ones based on which particular strain of the virus was present. That doesn't seem to be the case. Rather you have a hodgepodge of cases; severe cases right next to extremely mild ones. A better explanation would be whatever immunity each of us has. There's a lot more variability in that. Some of us have been exposed to a lot of viruses over our lifetimes. Those folks when exposed to Covid-19 are more likely to get a mild case. Other folks have been exposed to many fewer viruses and are more likely to get a severe case of Covid-19.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 22, 2020 15:00:32 GMT -6
That article is no surprise.
It is an interesting model, but no data is there supporting it's application. Nor is there any discussion of past cases where it fits. Only a general invitation and allegation it MIGHT explain past variation.
IF the assumptions in the model actually do apply, all the better. But the problem here is we have very poor data and certainly cannot validate application of the model.
Wait for data before we use it? In the meantime look at plausible existing confirmed theories that explain the data we have equally well or better.
If the model may apply to some real world populations, somewhere, the article does not suggest exactly where or how it might be used. It presents a hypothesis to explore.
I am all for that. But not assuming it is valid and making it public policy.
For our discussion, note the article does not address the assumptions you make that widespread exposure now exists, that past exposure to other viruses creates immunity, or the length of time any immunity exists. Or the degree of immunity.
No data.
Without that you should worry about confirmation bias.
Doubting theory is at the heart of science, but abandoning theory waits on evidence.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 3, 2020 6:30:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 28, 2020 18:22:29 GMT -6
Delaware County is going to be fine in covid numbers soon enough. They got screwed by the bsu numbers and some breakouts at the highschools. Those peaked around the same time as bsu and like the bsu numbers those have fell off to almost nothing now Interesting that now BSU is looking fairly good, but Indiana and Delaware Cty covid numbers are not good. Looks like the expected 2nd wave, and the projections are now grim for the next 3 months. Cold weather, too much opening even though Indiana was moderate on that count, not unreasonable. Apparently not quite tough enough.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Oct 29, 2020 6:32:51 GMT -6
If only the people in charge had the hindsight that you do.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 29, 2020 12:02:46 GMT -6
If only the people in charge had the hindsight that you do. I admit to a pessimism on this virus. Still. Seems to me that what I have said along the way has a pretty good track record. Betting on science usually does.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Oct 29, 2020 12:11:07 GMT -6
Especially when the science keeps changing the message.
|
|