CDC Notifies States, Large Cities To Prepare For Vaccine Distribution As Soon As Late October

[RamblingMad]

But cases have continued trending down since July. So why do you claim there's an increase because schools are open?

You can find the data that shows increased spread and cases on university campuses. This event didn’t occur until they reopened. Also, spread differs by state.

 

[Jonfw2]

Just to bring this back home, the bottom line is there HAVE been significant advancements since this started with more coming in the near future.

 

[sam_gordon]

You can find the data that shows increased spread and cases on university campuses. This event didn’t occur until they reopened. Also, spread differs by state.

Here's your quote...

Cases were going down until schools started reopening.

I'd argue, based on US total numbers, cases are STILL going down. I'm sure you can find states (and communities in states) where they're having spread. I understand you look at everything related to this virus with a negative lens. I try to look for some positives where I can.

 

[RamblingMad]

Throughout all of this you've harped about states reopening too quickly but you never really go into much detail beyond bars and stuff. You often keep a high level over view of the situation. I find myself actually looking at the data points, looking to help shed light on why an area when up at a certain time but didn't before. You also talk a lot about MedCram. The thing about speaking about generalities is just that. When someone points to an area that has a high rate of increases I actually go look up that given area, I go into looking for reasons why; I don't expect people to do that but I'm naturally curious and that's just what I do. In my own area I look for these details and I feel like one should do this for the area you live in because it directly affects you. A youtube video, even done in the medical field and even while not being a bad source to go to, isn't going to really give me that. I listen to my regional area's hospital system's daily video updates (I don't watch them daily but I do keep up on them) though and keep up with the updates for my region as well as at the state level though I don't look at that nearly as frequently as I used to (partly burn out of all things COVID). Maybe you do this and apologies in advance if you do and can know from your direct area that the large cases are only due to reopening too quickly and not about anything else.


I was reading earlier about a study done in Houston. The information was the following:
"Many different strains of the virus entered Houston initially, but when the city moved from a small initial wave in March to a much larger outbreak in late June, almost every coronavirus sample contained a particular mutation on the virus’ surface that had previously been found in cases in Europe. Patients with that strain of coronavirus carried more virus particles than other people, meaning they were probably more infectious, the study found. Researchers say the rise of this contagious strain of the virus may have driven up the infection rate in the Houston area, which jumped from an average of around 200 new Covid-19 cases per day to more than 2,400." Additionally this seemingly more contagious strain was studied in the UK in the spring also possibly responsible for increases in cases there.

But usually it's "well they just opened too quickly". You can have a slow, gradual, phased reopening and still result in higher case load if you've got a more contagious strain, your efforts aren't going to do as much as they would if you had a less contagious strain. And that's just one of the reasons. You can have a slow, gradual, phased reopening and have a superspreader event such that is that Maine wedding.

I don't disagree with you that spots here and there may have opened too quickly, I disagree with the generalization that that alone is responsible for large number of cases or at least that surely it must be because they opened too quickly.

So after looking at the data, what is the reason for the larger number of cases?

 

[RamblingMad]

Here's your quote...

I'd argue, based on US total numbers, cases are STILL going down. I'm sure you can find states (and communities in states) where they're having spread. I understand you look at everything related to this virus with a negative lens. I try to look for some positives where I can.

This virus has killed over 200 thousand people in the US, created a cultural war over mask use, and it continues to wreck havoc on people that get over having it. There is nothing positive about it other than economically making more money for a subset of companies. This is a year that I know a lot of people would prefer to forget.

As for going down, front page of NY Times shows +17% for 14 day change as of today.

 

[sam_gordon]

As for going down, front page of NY Times shows +17% for 14 day change as of today.

Worldometers chart w/7 day average marked.

Looks like around Aug 20, the decline leveled off, but still looks lower to me.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

So after looking at the data, what is the reason for the larger number of cases?

It's a circular discussion. You'll still cry "states reopened too quickly" as a general statement regardless what I post. I could post all day long about this and that and you'd still say "yeah well we reopened too quickly" no matter how much more information we gain about this virus. You didn't even speak towards the Houston study, IIRC correctly you were very much on the "TX reopened too quickly" track. And I understand that viewpoint...back then. But as our interest in the whys into the virus increases so does our understanding. Science shouldn't just be used when it suits our viewpoint.

I remember when the medical community was looking at June and July cases that were spiking around the nation with questioning in that and I remember them wondering about strains, reopenings, masks and more. It wasn't just one place that had an aggressive reopening plan it was a good amount of them even with more conservative reopening plans. It would be very beneficial if we could look more into things like them putting the pieces together about a more aggressive strain in a given area, we can't change the past but we can understand it better.

Also if you see where the rest of the world is resurging too and you can't really argue that they all just suddenly reopened too quickly, some of them were in such tight restrictions that we wouldn't even dream of here.

 

[Jonfw2]

This virus has killed over 200 thousand people in the US, created a cultural war over mask use, and it continues to wreck havoc on people that get over having it. There is nothing positive about it other than economically making more money for a subset of companies. This is a year that I know a lot of people would prefer to forget.

As for going down, front page of NY Times shows +17% for 14 day change as of today.

Two weeks ago was Labor Day week and the numbers were extremely low all week. Today, we are lower than at any point since June, save that one tiny dip two weeks ago.

 

[RamblingMad]

Two weeks ago was Labor Day week and the numbers were extremely low all week. Today, we are lower than at any point since June, save that one tiny dip two weeks ago.

I hope we stay that way. But we have Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas coming up. It’s going to be a tough quarter. Got to be extra vigilant.

 

[Jonfw2]

I hope we stay that way. But we have Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas coming up. It’s going to be a tough quarter. Got to be extra vigilant.

Totally agreed.

 

[RamblingMad]

It's a circular discussion. You'll still cry "states reopened too quickly" as a general statement regardless what I post. I could post all day long about this and that and you'd still say "yeah well we reopened too quickly" no matter how much more information we gain about this virus. You didn't even speak towards the Houston study, IIRC correctly you were very much on the "TX reopened too quickly" track. And I understand that viewpoint...back then. But as our interest in the whys into the virus increases so does our understanding. Science shouldn't just be used when it suits our viewpoint.

I remember when the medical community was looking at June and July cases that were spiking around the nation with questioning in that and I remember them wondering about strains, reopenings, masks and more. It wasn't just one place that had an aggressive reopening plan it was a good amount of them even with more conservative reopening plans. It would be very beneficial if we could look more into things like them putting the pieces together about a more aggressive strain in a given area, we can't change the past but we can understand it better.

Also if you see where the rest of the world is resurging too and you can't really argue that they all just suddenly reopened too quickly, some of them were in such tight restrictions that we wouldn't even dream of here.

What’s wrong about the reopening too fast narrative? What’s your narrative?

Certain venues will cause this virus to spread faster than others. I’ll post the study tonight. Opening those venues too fast leads to faster spread. Keeping them closed slows down the spread.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

What’s wrong about the reopening too fast narrative? What’s your narrative?

Certain venues will cause this virus to spread faster than others. I’ll post the study tonight. Opening those venues too fast leads to faster spread. Keeping them closed slows down the spread.

I never said it's wrong, but the issue can be when people only hear that, or headlines only call attention to that. It may or may not be the actual situation or it may be only part of the situation. If you look at the Houston study we're only just now hearing about it nearly 3 months after the surge. Maybe in AZ down the road they'll do more research, who knows maybe they find the same situation with a more contagious strain, maybe they won't but I don't think many people heard that Houston health community was researching their COVID cases, I think they just heard about the large increases and then went from there so it's possible things are being looked at when we aren't aware of them. I know they have been researching a more contagious strain for months now but I would imagine it's difficult to collaborate on that throughout the country.

I saw a news headline that said AZ cases increased were directly related to the end of the stay at home order. Well...yeah. It should have been expected to see increases in cases. I know in my area they were very frank about that. The leading health system for sure talked about that. They expected it, they told the public about it, and the only ones I saw surprised by it were ones who didn't seem to read the news. The medical community was looking for situations where it was beyond their systems ability to handle it and unfortunately in AZ that happened. In other places that experienced large surges relative to their numbers their medical systems were able to handle it.

Here in the U.S. when reopening plans were formulated it was largely with occupancy limits because that was what we were advised, that it was the amount of people that was the main contributor. We know now that probably shouldn't have been the main focus. Yes certain places can spread it faster than others. I've said multiple times I'm not opposed to indoor bars closing but that doesn't mean I think a place reopened too quickly by virtue of a place having allowed those to reopen.

I don't have a narrative. That implies I have an agenda. I don't. I'm an information seeker.

 

[RamblingMad]

I never said it's wrong, but the issue can be when people only hear that, or headlines only call attention to that. It may or may not be the actual situation or it may be only part of the situation. If you look at the Houston study we're only just now hearing about it nearly 3 months after the surge. Maybe in AZ down the road they'll do more research, who knows maybe they find the same situation with a more contagious strain, maybe they won't but I don't think many people heard that Houston health community was researching their COVID cases, I think they just heard about the large increases and then went from there so it's possible things are being looked at when we aren't aware of them. I know they have been researching a more contagious strain for months now but I would imagine it's difficult to collaborate on that throughout the country.

I saw a news headline that said AZ cases increased were directly related to the end of the stay at home order. Well...yeah. It should have been expected to see increases in cases. I know in my area they were very frank about that. The leading health system for sure talked about that. They expected it, they told the public about it, and the only ones I saw surprised by it were ones who didn't seem to read the news. The medical community was looking for situations where it was beyond their systems ability to handle it and unfortunately in AZ that happened. In other places that experienced large surges relative to their numbers their medical systems were able to handle it.

Here in the U.S. when reopening plans were formulated it was largely with occupancy limits because that was what we were advised, that it was the amount of people that was the main contributor. We know now that probably shouldn't have been the main focus. Yes certain places can spread it faster than others. I've said multiple times I'm not opposed to indoor bars closing but that doesn't mean I think a place reopened too quickly by virtue of a place having allowed those to reopen.

I don't have a narrative. That implies I have an agenda. I don't. I'm an information seeker.

What do you think of FL’s reopening restaurants to 100% capacity?

 

[Jonfw2]

What do you think of FL’s reopening restaurants to 100% capacity?

Too soon.

But hey- it’ll be a great experiment.

 

[Colleen27]

Too soon.

But hey- it’ll be a great experiment.

Maybe... but I'll bet a lot of restaurants won't change the way they're doing business because they don't have enough customers to need 100% capacity and are likely to value the public perception of better safety over the marginal increase they might be able to squeeze out during the limited peak periods where demand exceeds the limited capacity.

 

[RamblingMad]

Maybe... but I'll bet a lot of restaurants won't change the way they're doing business because they don't have enough customers to need 100% capacity and are likely to value the public perception of better safety over the marginal increase they might be able to squeeze out during the limited peak periods where demand exceeds the limited capacity.

I don’t know. Pete on the DIS has mentioned restaurants in Disney Springs that looked packed. This basically makes it legal.

Is FL the grand COVID experiment?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

What do you think of FL’s reopening restaurants to 100% capacity?

Well in my metro the largest city (not county but city) by population doesn't have limits on capacity for restaurants and they opened that way. Bars are 50% last I heard. There is a mask mandate that happened months after reopening. Tables there must be 10ft apart, with chair backs 6ft apart, cannot sit at the bar if at a restaurant that has one. Initially that city was looking to do a 10/10/10 meaning 10 person or 10% capacity and contact tracing list if in there for 10mins or more but they opted to not reopen that way.

In my county there is no capacity limit either anymore and not one for bars either. Tables should be 6ft apart, masks both inside and outside (the above city referenced their mask mandate does not extend to outside). You can sit at a bar at a restaurant too. ETA: I don't have the stats for the other state but according to the cluster summary a total of 276 cases (15 clusters total) state-wide have been contact traced to a bar or restaurant in my state leading to 4 hospitalizations but no deaths. These numbers reflect employees not just customers.

Like I mentioned when reopening plans were first announced the main thing was capacity percentages so when you ask me how I think about FL at 100% capacity my answer will be the capacity isn't what my main focus is. Looking back IMO we shouldn't have focused so much on that rather other things. If we could do it over again it would be spacing of tables, masks worn for admittance to a place and when you get up from the table (inside and outside), encouraging cities to allow for parklettes more and taking over parts of the parking lots and parking spaces to allow outdoor dining. With spacing of tables out that would reduce the occupancy allowable inside but parklettes and parking lots to be able to be used allows for restaurants and bars to keep going which eases the economic pressure while allowing for an option to customers that is less risky than indoors.

So in a nutshell the question to me wouldn't be what do you think about FL reopening restaurants at 100% capacity but rather what else goes into their plans. A 25% capacity for example won't matter if you don't care about what happens at the restaurant and that won't change if all you do is bump the capacity level up to 100%.

 

[Frwinkley]

Still leaves me completely dumbfounded that a health crisis that has killed over 200,000 Americans was called a "hoax." by leadership. Bet the family members of those deceased only wish that was true.

How the most powerful country in the world let this spiral out of control without any consistent messaging regarding preventing its spread angers me. We are a nation divided at a most crucial time.

 

[godisney14]

Here's your quote...

I'd argue, based on US total numbers, cases are STILL going down. I'm sure you can find states (and communities in states) where they're having spread. I understand you look at everything related to this virus with a negative lens. I try to look for some positives where I can.

I guess that depends on what range you're comparing with.
Based on US daily new case numbers, the past 2 weeks have seen cases going UP.

 

[godisney14]

Maybe... but I'll bet a lot of restaurants won't change the way they're doing business because they don't have enough customers to need 100% capacity and are likely to value the public perception of better safety over the marginal increase they might be able to squeeze out during the limited peak periods where demand exceeds the limited capacity.h

More people need to recognize this.

I still constantly see arguments being made locally and nationally to open up the economy. Well, restaurants have been open, at least for take out and outdoor dining, for some time almost everywhere. And, in my area, restaurants can't even get outdoor dining at capacity during what would be peak days/hours. People are just choosing not to eat out, NOT because the government is telling them they cannot. (Unless people somehow bizarrely value indoor dining over patio/outdoor dining so much so that they just rather not go out to eat). Every time a business closes, this is the misinformed comment I usually see on my NextDoor and FB. Just....unbelievable.