Carrick pointed me to googles “mobility” data. It estimates the change in time people spent in different places relative to a baseline. I plan to compare county behavior. But the first thing I looked at was change in time at home in Illinois. I’ve marked date all schools statewide were closed and the later date when Pritzker’s “stay at home” order was enacted. My local library was closed a bit before that. St. Patrick’s day parades were cancelled the Sunday before the stay at home took place.
See below.
(The blue outlines highlight weekends. )
Other than the whole ‘weekend’ issue, the main features that strike me are:
- There was a dramatic change in behavior associated with the quarantine being in place. It was announced March 17, and officially in place March 20. The vertical line is March 20.
- The effects is lessening somewhat with time. (This is more evident in some other plots.)
Naturally, I glanced at other plots. Here’s is %change in time going to retail or recreation venues.
I gotta ask my fellow Illini this: where are you finding places to do “retail” or “recreate”? I guess it must be The Home Depot, garden stores and Walmart? (Groceries and pharmacy is another category. So are parks.)
I’m looking at other plots, and deciding on how to organize what to show. (I’m very interested in how various counties in “NorthEast” Illinois are doing relative to each other. Visitors here likely don’t care all that much about NorthEast Illinois.)
Update: Modified to substitute graph with two lines.
Lucia,
“Visitors here likely don’t care all that much about NorthEast Illinois.”
.
Depends. If the data shows something interesting… like why adjacent counties are wildly different in cases/deaths, that could be interesting. But most likely… cases and deaths depend mostly on how often people went to Chicago.
It looks like behavior started to change about a week before the quarantine and that the change was essentially complete by the time the quarantine went into effect. Hard to tell without clear date markings.
SteveF,
I don’t think that’s entirely the reason because Kane County’s death and case rates are high.
.
Bear in mind, Aurora is mostly in Kane county and is the 2nd largest city in the state. It’s also partly in DuPage (and Kendall and Will. There’s a 4-corner’s thing going on.) Naperville may be 3rd largest and borders on Aurora.
.
But DuPage county is mostly “leafy suburbs”. Much of Kane is rural. It’s sort of “where the landscapers live” (though not entirely.) If the main issue was commuting to Chicago, DuPage death/ case rate would be higher but it’s not. Dupage has a low case rate. So there may be some demographic/job/etc issue going on. OR the problem in Kane might just be random chance. They just recently had two break outs in nursing homes.
.
The big reason I want to see county data is I hear a number of claims and I want to know if overall they are true or false. I don’t want to just see instantaneous numbers which are easily cherry picked.
.
There’s a lot of chatter from mayors in Western Cook, DuPage and McHenry wanting to be unlinked from Chicago in any decisions about getting off quarantine. The silence from Kane is deafening. . . (Because they wouldn’t get off quaratine… I’m pretty sure. )
MikeM.
I should have put the line for when the stay at home was announced. That’s 3 days before the line I show. Also: A few things did start closing. For example: St. Pat’s day parades scheduled for March 14 were cancelled in at least Chicago and Naperville. These are government actions. The black line is the day quarantine was enacted. I’ll put the line for March 17.
I added a line for the date when schools were closed to the first graph. I think you can scan back to the two previous blue dots to see “St. Patrick’s day weekend”. Parade’s were cancelled in Chicago and many locations. That’s a government act– not just people staying home.
.
I really think the effect of government is clear here. It’s a small time scale compared to the time it takes for symptoms to develop and exposed people to die.
lucia,
Sure, the issue is not that the government should do nothing. Things like announcing a state of emergency, closing schools, and cancelling a parade contribute to the public’s state of concern and that influences actions. The question with the lock downs is whether heavy handed mandates were needed or if it would have been enough to keep people informed and allow individuals to make their own decisions. It looks to me like it is the latter.
MathCounts put its canceled state contest online.
The final question of the team round was
Pick six whole numbers at random from 1 to 900, duplicates allowed.
What is the probability that the product has a remainder of 4 when divided by 30?
MikeM,
I haven’t suggested you are claiming the government should do nothing or something… so I don’t know where that is even coming from.
The issue with regard to this figure is whether the government action resulted in behavioral changes. It’s pretty clear it did.
.
I don’t think it makes sense to allow notions about whether government actions are just or useful to interfere with our being able to identify that the actions did result in changes in behavior..
.
It appears it did result in people changing their behaviors.
Here is the political reality of coronavirus:
http://assets.realclear.com/images/51/510090_5_.png
.
Democrats oppose reopening by huge margins. I do not find this at all surprising.
They don’t want to reopen parks or beaches?!
I get not wanting to reopen some of the other things. But parks and beaches? That’s one of the best places for people to be! If you don’t open those, people are going to sneak around having in door parties!!!!!
Restaurants…. well, they need to have some sort of provision for ventillation, filtration, spacing out people sitting etc. Schools are going to be really tough.
Churches– well, at least drive in mass seems to work in some states. We really need to figure out how to get those who want to go to church to do so safely. But it’s important to those who have certain religious views.
But seriously, now can someone not want to reopen parks and beaches? Maybe come up with a capacity limit, encourage masks, but they should get opened.
Lucia,
“But parks and beaches?”
.
Ya, that is a head scratcher. Since it flys in the face of every study on transmission: transmission takes place almost always indoors, in close proximity, with air flow direction and speed being a part of the spread. Nobody catches the virus walking alone in a park or on a beach. The resistance to allowing people to use parks and beaches is totally ideological, not rational.
.
But for me the bigger issue is that the wrong questions are being asked, and the wrong policy options are being considered.
.
Going to a crowded church, bar, or restaurant will for sure increase your chance of catching the virus. But the people going to those places do so voluntarily… nobody is forcing them to go. Depending on age and health, the risk those people incur varies from minuscule to large, and I think health authorities should be very honest and very clear when explaining how personal risk of serious illness changes with age and other health issues. The argument is a little more complicated for schools… the kids can make no informed choice about attending school… they have to go. Many kids will become infected, of course, but I think it is important to note the issue with schools is NOT the safety of the kids (99.9% will have no serious problems, and most will never know they caught the virus), so there is no real need for kids to make informed choices about attending.
.
The real issue with schools, churches, bars, restaurants, stores, and even beaches and parks is the possibility that those who go to these places and catch the virus will be infective before showing symptoms or even asymptomatic and infective for the entire course of their “illness”. These people could then spread the virus to elderly and or immune compromised people. Coronavirus infection is the “externality from hell”… your emission of CO2 is an externality in the sense that it contributes to slight warming everywhere. But shedding virus particles in public can kill vulnerable people you come in contact with. Those who’s world view focuses on limiting and controlling all externalities (and there are plenty of those!) conclude that even your potential coronavirus externality means you lose all personal liberties… you have no more right to make personal choices than felons sitting in prisons. The anger (even rage!) you see many display when a bunch of 20-somethings and 30-somethings go to the beach or the bar, or when a bunch of 50 and 60-somethings go to church services, is the anger of allowing thousands of felons to cavort wihtout consequence. “How dare you allow your externalities to endanger anyone else!” is the rational, and “You must stay at home, close your business, etc. and protect those people who might die from the illness.” is the logical policy which flows from the mostly ‘progressive’ POV on externalities.
.
Lots of people (including me) reject that analysis completely: The smallish fraction of the population who are at risk need to act like they are at risk and avoid contact with potential carriers. If they choose to take the risk to attend church services, so be it. Those at risk who don’t have the ability to avoid contact with potential carriers (like in nursing and assisted living facilities), need to be protected via rules and regulations on how those facilities are operated. Far better to have care givers tested daily in nursing homes, and groceries delivered to those living at home who are at risk, even if done at public expense, than to simply take the personal liberties of everyone by fiat, and destroy the economy in the process.
.
We have the entire process turned upside down. We are “saving” the vulnerable by punishing the large majority. The tail is waging the dog, and the dog clearly grows tired of this nonsense.
I am very much in agreement with SteveF, except for schools. Elementary and middle schools have remained open in many places. When contact tracing has been done on children with the virus, it has been found that:
(1) When children catch the virus, it is almost always from older family members.
(2) Transmission between children is very slight.
(3) Transmission from children to adults is almost non-existent.
Very surprising. A caveat is that there does not seem to be a lot of data, at least not published. But I would think the Swedes have a lot of data by this time and they do not seem worried.
Children hardly get sick from the virus, so perhaps any virus shedding is small and very limited in time, thus minimizing the infection of others.
That said, I can see why a family with a vulnerable person in the house might not want the kids going to school. Accommodation should be made in such cases. But I see no need to keep all children out of school.
.
Targeted policies are both less costly and more effective than blanket policies. But the left is in love with one size fits all; the better to control people and extinguish individuality. So they impose burdensome policies on the general population while leaving the elderly in nursing homes largely unprotected. Or even actively endangering them, as in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
So I got curious about Germany again, since it had at one time been important for the media to follow its numbers after they “eased.” This time, I actually had to look fairly hard, since for some reason, the usual suspects didn’t seem to place a high priority on reporting it. This is what I found.
.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-13/german-new-coronavirus-cases-decline-infection-rate-drops
.
And what a difference a day makes!
.
“The estimated reproduction factor of the virus, which reflects the number of additional cases directly generated by one infected person, dropped to 0.94 on Tuesday, from 1.07 the day before, according to the latest situation report from the country’s public health authority, the Robert Koch Institute.â€
.
But I found a curious previous headline from the same source while looking for it.
.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-08/germany-s-new-coronavirus-cases-rise-the-most-in-a-week
.
As we’ve been discussing, Germany has a very strong day-of-the-week dependence on reporting of new cases. I guess Bloomberg thought it was noteworthy that Germany’s Friday number was the highest since…the previous Friday.
Mike M,
“Or even actively endangering them, as in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.”
.
I saw the gov of NJ interviewed. When pressed on sending infectious elderly to nursing homes, he danced around the question and never directly answered….. it was closer to “I didn’t do it and won’t do it again.” He is a joke, and a disaster for NJ.
John M,
“I guess Bloomberg thought it was noteworthy that Germany’s Friday number was the highest since…the previous Friday.”
.
Well, analytical and math skills were never the strong suits of journalism majors.
The media is doing a poor job of separating low risk from high risk activities. They keep framing it is as a binary open/close decision. The message of “stay away from enclosed poorly ventilated spaces with other people” is pretty simple and almost non-existent in the media. Part of this is the condescending view that the rubes can’t understand such nuance.
.
I tend to think of it as: Imagine everyone is chain smoking constantly, where are the worst places to smell cigarette smoke for an extended period of time? Us oldsters can definitely remember the back few rows of airplanes as being the worst case scenario. Crowded bars. High density offices. Places with low ceilings. It’s not perfect as smoke doesn’t fall to the floor.
.
With a more forward looking view, I think we may need to institute much tougher non-residential ventilation standards over the next decade.
SteveF,
It’s only Bloomberg. They tout themselves for covering the stock market. Why would you expect them to be able to notice a pattern in bar chart? 😉
Tom Scharf,
“Imagine everyone is chain smoking constantly, where are the worst places to smell cigarette smoke for an extended period of time?”
.
That s a very good parallel. Smoking was allowed in crowded public places for a very long time. Unfortunately, nobody can smell coronavirus.
Two possibilities (don’t know how likely):
One, beaches patronized by Democrats may be more crowded in normal times–think Coney Island, Venice, etc. Democrats might reasonably think they are dangerous to open.
Two, Democrats might reasonably fear a slippery slope if beaches are opened, that leading to indiscriminate congregation as a result of the natural activities surrounding beach attendance.
It might be interesting to look at the data by state.
Thomas,
WRT to “slippery slope” arguments, those objecting to any unwarranted restriction may realistically fear these things that are already unwarranted will lead to restrictions that are even more unwarranted.
So it seems to me if the only argument for a restriction it that not having it represents a “slippery slope”, that restriction ought not to be put in place.
What’s of course even worse is if a restriction is not warranted in and of itself (as opposed to by the “slippery slope” fear) it will be disobeyed. That will result in a huge slippery slope of people ignoring the other ones.
WRT to some beaches being more crowded: It would be easy enough for who are worrying that Coney Island is crowded to find the data and see if some beaches are more crowded than others. Then just close the crowded ones. I mean, it would be pretty stupid to close the beach in Niles or Lake Bluff just because you were worried the beaches in Chicago were crowded or vice versa. Just close the ones that are crowded. Leave the others open. This is not difficult.
Lucia,
If a beach tends to become very crowded, then it would be better to limit the number of people on the beach at one time than to close the beach. But really, ‘the science’ says infections are rarely passed outdoors. The burden for showing otherwise is on those who want to close beaches and parks…. along with everything else, of course.
You wanna see crowds? Wait until they announce they’re reopening the Pennsylvania state-run Wine & Spirits stores.
Then you’ll see crowds. Almost as big as when they announced they were closing the state-run Wine & Spirits stores.
The NYT’s (as if they heard me complain, ha ha) covers the risk of coronavirus outdoors.
.
What We Know About Your Chances of Catching the Virus Outdoors
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/us/coronavirus-what-to-do-outside.html
.
“The good news: Interviews show a growing consensus among experts that, if Americans are going to leave their homes, it’s safer to be outside than in the office or the mall. With fresh air and more space between people, the risk goes down.
But experts also expressed particular caution about outdoor dining, using locker rooms at pools and crowds in places like beaches. While going outside can help people cope with quarantine fatigue, there is a risk they will lower their guard or meet people who are not being safe.”
“Pandemic life is safer outdoors, in part, because even a light wind will quickly dilute the virus. If a person nearby is sick, the wind will scatter the virus, potentially exposing nearby people but in far smaller quantities, which are less likely to be harmful.
“The virus load is important,†said Eugene Chudnovsky, a physicist at Lehman College and the City University of New York’s Graduate Center. “A single virus will not make anyone sick; it will be immediately destroyed by the immune system. The belief is that one needs a few hundred to a few thousand of SARS-CoV-2 viruses to overwhelm the immune response.—
.
This article is heavy on expert opinion and light on actual data. I still wonder what the trillions of worldwide dollars are being spent on when these type of basic questions have little hard data.
What has happened to all the serology tests? It seems that I have not read of any new surveys for at least two weeks, maybe three weeks.
Remember that vaunted Imperial Pandemic Model? Upon further review … ha ha.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/16/neil-fergusons-imperial-model-could-devastating-software-mistake/
Neil Ferguson’s Imperial model could be the most devastating software mistake of all time
The boss of a top software firm asks why the Government failed to get a second opinion before accepting Imperial College’s Covid modelling
.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/imperial-college-britain-coronavirus-lockdown-buggy-mess-unreliable
.
“Experts have derided the coding from Professor Neil Ferguson, warning that it is a “buggy mess that looks more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming.â€
“In our commercial reality, we would fire anyone for developing code like this and any business that relied on it to produce software for sale would likely go bust,†David Richards, co-founder of British data technology company WANdisco, told the Daily Telegraph.â€
“Scientists from the University of Edinburgh have further claimed that it is impossible to reproduce the same results from the same data using the model. The team got different results when they used different machines, and even different results from the same machines.â€
.
Unless a professor is in computer science, the assumption should be that their code is a complete disaster until somebody reviews it.
Spain antibody test and the framing bias:
https://thecapitolist.com/new-studies-keep-showing-covid-19-less-deadly-but-liberal-media-and-politicians-say-they-are-scary/
.
It looks like 10x is about the right number for untested cases in the community.
.
And in other news, Russia is now in 2nd place in the infection Olympics with Brazil quickly climbing the ladder.
There is also extensive serologic testing in Arizona. I calculated an IFR of 0.21% using current deaths. A more accurate number would be derived by taking deaths 2 weeks after testing mean date. But even assuming 30% more deaths in the next week, that comes in around 0.27%.
I did the same calculation for the Miami-Dade data taking deaths 2 weeks after the report of test results and got 0.17% – 0.31%. That’s probably too high because testing probably took place over a period of weeks, so taking deaths 1 week after reported results would be more accurate.
Mike M,
After the 20+% seropositive rate in NYC, along with relatively high seropositive rates in other places, reporting on that very good news seemed to disappear….. once it dawned on the MSM that meant the illness has a far lower fatality rate than was feared. ‘it’s not nearly as bad as we thought’ is not a story they want to hear, never mind put before the public. Nor are they interested in accurately reporting that the fatality rate is very, very low except for those over 65 or with compromised immune systems. Yes, if it bleeds it leads, but the reporting on coronavirus is exceptionally bad. I read a headline from any Florida news outlet, and it inevitably blares something like “Florida death toll leaps again, closing in on 2,000 deathsâ€, when in fact Florida’s new case rates and number of daily deaths are falling gradually, not “leapingâ€. It is just plain dishonest reporting, designed to alarm, not inform.
.
FWIW, several commercial labs in my area will test anyone’s blood for covid antibodies…. if you pony up $140 or more.
Tom Scharf,
Brazil is already second in new cases/day and will overhaul Russia shortly in total cases if things continue as they are now. Cases and deaths are doubling in about 10 days in Brazil over the last 2o days. In Russia, it looks like the curve has started to bend.
The numbers for Mexico are a bit odd. They claim only about 10,000 active cases (~45,000 total, ~5,000 deaths and ~30,000 recoveries. The problem with that is that there have been 10,000 new cases in the last five days. That means the ~2,000 cases on May 10 have already died or recovered. I don’t think so.
DeWitt,
My business contacts in Mexico City suggest that the socialist government of Lopez Obrador may be just straight-out falsifying the corona virus data. People in Mexico are becoming frustrated that the economy has been anemic since he was elected, and the level of organized crime, executions, and general violence have not improved. While still relatively popular (55% to 59% approval) his approval ratings have fallen ~19% since he took office.
.
With the Coronavirus recession already starting, he is likely to become less popular as economic conditions worsen.
SteveF,
A socialist government making up data that would otherwise be embarrassing if reported accurately? I’m shocked, shocked that may be happening( to paraphrase the line from Casablanca)! As long as AMLO has control of the police and the army, he probably doesn’t care much about his popularity. Now if he brings in Cuban Intelligence, there’s going to be a serious problem.
OTOH, there’s New York city (and other venues) where apparently no one has recovered in the five boroughs.
DeWitt,
Unfortunately for Mexicans, Lopez Obrador does not appear to care at all about damage to the economy or harm to individuals. Like all on the left, it is “progress†(leftward) that he is after. I hope he has the good sense to not bring in Cuba’s security goons, but I wouldn’t count on it if he feels like he is not going to get reelected.
DeWitt,
I was mistaken, Lopez Obrador can’t run for re-election unless he changes the constitution. But he is a socialist, so who knows.
Message for Dem governors: “Stop it, just stop it.”
.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/16/people-flock-to-nyc-area-bars-beaches-as-quarantine-fatigue-intensifies/
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/17/democratic-governors-coronavirus-lockdown-legal-challenges-261428
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/us/domestic-violence-coronavirus.html
.
The treatment has for a long time been worse than the disease. Stupid rules turn normal people into criminals because they will ignore stupid rules. The insane lock-down response is coming to an end. The only real question is how much more needless damage Democrats will do. Will they shift focus to actually protect those in need of protection, or will they continue to punish everyone who wants to (and MUST) get on with their lives…… while never actually protecting the most vulnerable? I fear in most cases they will choose continued punishment…. a policy doomed to fail, and to do great harm in the process.
SteveF
I think the message is starting to get through.
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/15/857144397/police-back-off-from-social-distancing-enforcement
You just need the right spin on it.
John M,
I sure hope so. If they would just declare victory and do nothing else, that would at least be less destructive. To both stop the senseless destruction and adopt policies that directly help those at risk would be far better, but probably too much to hope for…. goes against the whole “you’re evil because of your externalities” mania progressives suffer from.
The sherrifs office in Grundy county sent out a letter telling people the Sherrif is not enforcing the order. In some cases, he merely noted he doesn’t have jurisdictional authority. In others.. he’s just not having forces enforce.
He did point out that cities and the state might take enforcement actions. He also had a paragraph discussing the opinion of someone in the attorney general’s office who thinks the order might not hold up in court.
Grundy is tiny, mostly farms and so on.
Lucia,
I think more and more people are starting to realize “This is just stooopid.”
.
For places like Grundy county, with low populations and almost no cases, it is especially stupid. But even Comrade DeBlasio’s proletariat are starting to realize that the police can’t arrest everyone for not wearing a mask. It is like an emperor’s new clothes parade, and people are noticing the emperor’s attire. This will only accelerate.
SteveF,
Parts are; parts aren’t.
In some cases, some restrictions that are useful in one location are stupid in other locations. The difficulty is that given human nature making rules that are stupid in some way or another actually tends reduces compliance with the rules that are useful. Political debate ends up focusing on the particular rule that are stupid, the arguments they are stupid are sound, and then people take mental short cuts and assume the other rules are also stupid.
Making and promoting the rules that are not useful is not the way to get compliance. Sure some people will comply. But often those people would have even if there was no rule. The purpose of rules is generally go get the people who otherwise would not do something to do it. Long winded explanations trying to justify the subset of rules at are stupid doesn’t win them over!
Various jurisdictions around here are taking different actions to push back against Pritzker’s quarantine as it applies to us. Some will fail. Some will succeed. But at a certain point wilful blindness on the part of local sherriffs, police and so on is going to happen.
As I’ve said before: this isn’t a “should” argument. It’s like “water will flow to a low point”, “will” statement.
This isn’t an easy thing for Governors. Because it is true that deaths might– likely will– rise as quarantines fail. The problem is that’s not enough to make the population as a whole comply.
lucia (Comment #184957): “Making and promoting the rules that are not useful is not the way to get compliance. Sure some people will comply. But often those people would have even if there was no rule.”
.
Indeed. That is very much the case with the lockdowns, since most people were already obeying most of the rules before the lockdowns were decreed.
.
lucia: “The purpose of rules is generally go get the people who otherwise would not do something to do it.”
.
Yes, but the people not obeying the rules are primarily endangering themselves and those close to them. It was different when there was a risk of overwhelming the medical system, but that risk is no longer significant.
.
lucia: “The difficulty is that given human nature making rules that are stupid in some way or another actually tends reduces compliance with the rules that are useful.”
.
Indeed. The main effect of the crackdowns is to make the situation onerous for almost everyone. That can actually be counterproductive by reducing compliance even among those inclined to comply.
Time spent at home has been declining gradually since the lockdowns went into effect.
.
Had the people been freed a month ago, behavior would have changed gradually. That would have allowed a feedback loop to operate between new cases and behavior. But clamping the lid on a boiling pot makes it hard to release the pressure without risking a catastrophe.
Lucia,
“This isn’t an easy thing for Governors. Because it is true that deaths might– likely will– rise as quarantines fail. The problem is that’s not enough to make the population as a whole comply.â€
.
Sure, if nothing else changes, there will be some increase in serious cases and deaths. Most governors adopted policies which did not adequately protect people truly at risk and instead instituted policies that locked down those at little risk. They STILL could institute policies that are more effective…. but I doubt they will. A fundamental shift in policies is an admission of bad (initial) judgement, few politicians want to admit that.
lucia (Comment #184957): “This isn’t an easy thing for Governors.”
.
I have zero sympathy for the governors. It is easy for them to issue decrees that make it looks like they are in control. But they are not supposed to limit themselves to easy. They are supposed to act on behalf of the people, even if it takes a lot of hard work. Most have not bothered to do that.
SteveF,
Sure. When I saw cases counts in Kane are as high as Dupage… I googled. They are having outbreaks in nursing homes. That is tragic. But the correct steps to fix the problems in nursing homes is going to be different from those with deaths in the ‘non-nursing home’ population.
The “nursing home” problem will also (sadly and tragically) vanish from the data a rather quickly. The reason is that when Covid hits a nursing home, it rips through kills or sickens a whole bunch of people. But it really doesn’t spread outside. So, you get a sort of “blip” in case/death data. Then it reverts to the “non-nursing home” level.
I have to admit I don’t entirely know what to do to fix nursing homes effectively. But I do know it’s not closing beaches, parks or even almost all retail. Sadly, I’m not sure we will figure out effective things to do in nursing homes before a very large fraction of nursing homes are hit.
I don’t, btw, know whether nursing or assisted living places use plenty of fresh air in t heir HVAC. Maybe yes… maybe no.
MikeM
Recognizing they have a difficult situation to try to steer through and having “sympathy” is not entirely the same thing.
Lucia,
Once the virus spreads in a nursing hone it is already too late to fix. By the time people are symptomatic, lots and lots have been infected. The only solution is to keep the virus out of these facilities. There are three steps which would help in elderly care:
1) Test every employee who is going to enter the facility every day for virus with a nasal swab test… this test takes 15 minutes. no entry unless you are not shedding virus.
2) Offer astronomical salaries for employees to “live in†for a couple of weeks at a time. Not all could, of course, but if the salary is high enough, lots would. Even the live-ins would have to be tested for several days after entry to be sure they had not become infective.
3) Nobody enters to visit unless they have a clear nasal swab test, not even doctors and nurses.
.
WRT the rest of the deaths: the risk is almost 100% among those over 65, and probably 80% of the fatal cases will be people over 75, or with other serious health issues. The elderly living independently could be offered assistance with things like getting medications, getting food, etc. Those living with younger family members should be informed of the risk and asked to consider temporary residency elsewhere…. with financial assistance if needed. But nobody should be forced to do anything.
.
All of these would be more effective than lockdowns, and much cheaper than driving unemployment to 30+%.
The silver lining in having a huge break out in a meat packing plant or elder care facility is that a month later the problem is solved one way or the other. They may effectively reach “localized herd immunity”.
.
In FL:
83% of deaths are 65 and older
25% are over 85
43% can be attributed to long-term care facilities
https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/05/17/in-florida-83-percent-of-coronavirus-deaths-are-people-65-and-older/
Tom Scharf,
I expect most of those under 65 had other serious health issues, but there don’t appear to be any available data to confirm that. Anyone with serious health issues (even if under 65) is clearly at risk.
SteveF,
100% risk? The fact that over 90% of deaths are people over 65 does not mean the risk of dying from an infection is over 90%. A table at worldometers.info lists the fatality rate for people (mostly men) 80+ years old as 21.9% for confirmed cases and 14.8% for all cases. For ages 70-79, it’s 8%, 60-69, 3.6%. Also on the same page is a breakdown of NYC deaths by age on April 14. 23.1% of the deaths were people in the age range 45-64, admittedly the vast majority of those had underlying conditions (1343/1581).
DeWitt,
If someone is middle age or older and has underlying conditions, then they run much higher risk than someone in the same age group who does not have underlying conditions. Those with underlying conditions need to be much more careful to avoid exposure risk…. they should consider risk of exposure more like someone much older would.
.
That said, I suspect the calculated fatality rates are dubious at best…. lots of people are infected and never show symptoms and are never tested… even among elderly people. The data are not nearly complete enough to calculate IFR across age groups, and probably won’t be until long after the pandemic is over and rates of seropositivity across age groups are determined.
SteveF,
The errors on computing the IFR are both in the numerator and denominator!