WHO: Second wave of COVID-19 seems less likely.
Sorry for not having a link. This appears on Reddit. Can be found by googling Dr. Maria Neira COVID-19 second wave.
The article is in Spanish so here's a rough translation:
WHO sees a second major wave of COVID-19 increasingly unlikely
The director of Public Health of the World Health Organization (WHO) , María Neira , said on Monday that the models they work with are "increasingly" ruling out a second wave of the coronavirus.
However, Neira has called for "great caution" and "common sense" in this "very critical" phase of the pandemic (de-escalation), and, in statements to RAC-1, has requested that the population should not be paranoid nor should they relax too much, but they should "learn to live with infectious diseases ".
“There are many models that predict many probabilities such as a punctual regrowth or a major wave, but this last possibility is increasingly being ruled out. We are much better prepared in all areas'', said the Spanish doctor.
According to Neira, “ we have lowered the transmission rate so much that the virus will have difficulty surviving . We must be very careful to say whether this is the end of the wave, but the data at least shows us that the transmission and explosion of the first weeks have been avoided''.
However, she pointed out that "it is worth not making many forecasts because the next few weeks are a very critical phase."
«With reopening you have to see how the virus behaves. We hope there will be no other outbreaks, but it will be a day-to-day battle. In two or three weeks we will see what has happened and if it is necessary to correct it surgically ”, she said about the de-escalation in phase 1 that all of Spain has entered.
Neira has acknowledged that the WHO still has "certain doubts about the relationship of the virus with the weather" , although they are seeing that "it is doing the geographical route expected of a virus that wants to survive".
Absolute bullshit.
try going out for target practice with your guns in almost every country you mentioned ... or naming your baby whatever you want (Denmark has 7000 approved name list), or spanking your kids, which was outlawed in Sweden among many other places in Western Europe, or having your stupid and offensive bumper stickers that you think are hilarious, or flying an offensive flag, or voicing an opinion deemed offensive as most countries have laws on speech .....
Do other countries have many of the same freedoms? Sure. But they are absolutely NOT as free as the USA in terms of firearms and free speech/voicing your opinion ... a simple google search would show you this
"...at least we get to hit our kids and shoot guns!"
what a moron.
Way to take 20% of what I said and turn it into something completely different, all while completely missing the point
what a moron
This may actually be the stupidest comment I've ever seen here.
Freedom equals guns and spanking your kids. You're the guy advocating hitting kids.
Those other countries actually allow all ranged of opinions. But you've proved the point about the U.S. being like these other countries, except much less educated.
Man oh man, maybe not being allowed to hit your kids was a bad example to choose.
You're wrong, but at least you can recognize you're uneducated, congrats. The next step is fixing this issue...
These other countries do not have a First Amendment. That is a critical difference.
The whole "'Mericans won't wear masks because FREEDOM!" thing is overblown. I see lots of people in masks every day. It just doesn't make the news. The weird outlier stuff makes the news.
Likewise, everyone flipped out about the crowd of people at the lake in Arkansas . . . but the fact that it was a national news story about a crowd in Arkansas says it all.
You're not going to get 100% participation in social distancing/mask wearing but if you can get a good chunk of the population to do it, that still makes a difference.
I'm the one in my family that shops... In the Ann Arbor area - about 25% of people in stores aren't wearing masks, or following single direction aisles.
We were up at our cottage last weekend... the neighbors had ~25 different people, from easily 5-10 households, partying it up. Not a single mask. No social distancing. 10+ people on their pontoon boat. Etc.
This gets to the issue a lot of people have about the information we are given:
I feel fairly comfortable with the idea that if I'm going to be indoors for any more than a couple of minutes in a public place, a mask makes sense. If a place says I need a mask, I wear a mask. But is it helpful outside? What does it matter if I walk into a place to pick up food and no one is wearing masks and I'm out in less than a minute?
What is the science behind "single direction aisles"?
If people are partying outside, what is the danger of transmission? Is there any? Is it minimal? Does the weather matter? Humidity?
And what is effective social distancing? We've been told 6 feet (roughly 2 meters) between individuals, but different European countries have different lengths they use between 1 and 2 meters.
" What does it matter if I walk into a place to pick up food and no one is wearing masks and I'm out in less than a minute? "
One less person potentially infecting the area for a minute.
" What is the science behind "single direction aisles"? "
Maximizing social distancing.
" If people are partying outside, what is the danger of transmission? "
When "outside" equals 25 people crammed into a 500 square foot deck eating and drinking, or 10+ people in a 20' pontoon boat... about the same as indoors.
" And what is effective social distancing? "
All of it. It's a continuum, not a switch.
For folks riding a bike at 15mph, it's believed another person on a bike needs to be ~50 feet behind to be out of the infected wash.
It all starts with exposure x time. You have to come in contact with enough of the virus to catch it. One molecule will not infect you.
So, the danger of being in a place for one minute to pick up food is low unless someone sneezes directly in your face. If you are infected and the place has poor ventilation you could potentially increase the risk to those in the place who stay after you leave – but this risk is likely no more than medium. Still use a dam mask. It’s not that hard and it can help lower the risk to the people that work in the store who are there for more than one minute.
Outside partying is not about the same risk as indoor partying. To your point if it is a large gathering with people close together outside for an extended period of time there would be significant risk. This risk is still lower than the same number of people inside partying. The data indicates that the vast majority of cases are contracted in indoor spaces. The risk outdoors is likely many magnitudes less than outdoors
The bike riding thing is bullshit of the highest level. Any virus expelled by the biker will rapidly disperse. The odds of you receiving enough exposure by following someone on bike are off the charts low. You talked about social distancing as a continuum. Risk is a continuum as well. If your measure is risk vs. no risk you end up with a recommendation to stay in your home all the time. For many reasons both economic and psychological the majority of the population can’t do that. So we need to do a better job explaining low risk, medium risk and high risk.
" To your point if it is a large gathering with people close together outside for an extended period of time there would be significant risk. "
25 people on a 500 square foot deck outdoors will be worse than 25 in 5000 square foot store indoors. We're talking each person having 4-5 people within a 6' radius.
" The bike riding thing is bullshit of the highest level. Any virus expelled by the biker will rapidly disperse. "
50 feet at normal road biking speeds is about 1.5 seconds.
People within 6' radius is not the only factor and is likely not the most important factor. Air exchange matters a lot. Two people in a room for 8 hours with one infected and it has very poor air circulation (something less than 1 air change per hour) and they are 10 feet apart the risk is still very high. Take that same room and put ten people in it spaced around 6 feet but with 5 air changes per hour and they are only there two hours the risk is lower. Put 20 people outside with a 10mph breeze spaced 3 feet apart and the risk is lower.
Look at the data. In Colorado you can trace up to 80% of the cases to nursing homes, prisons and food processing factories. People in close quarters, poor air circulation for extended periods of time. Six feet is not magic. With the wrong environmental conditions, it won’t protect you. With the right conditions it is probably not necessary to protect you.
Yeah, I call BS on biking requiring a mask or 50 feet distancing. I probably wouldn't bike right on the tail of the same person for miles and miles, but other than that, it's difficult to imagine getting infected that way.
The whole "'Mericans won't wear masks because FREEDOM!" thing is overblown.
LMAO! You wish it was"overblown."
It's not like the President, his Republican sycophants, and a major cable news org aren't pushing what you call "overblown" every single day, all-day long.
And here we have people who think a store asking them to wear a mask while inside is oppressive tyranny of the highest order. I visited my parents in rural Michigan on Sunday for a small cookout and we had to go to the store. My mom and I were the only people in the store wearing masks, including staff. I was pretty stunned that the staff didn't even bother.
There's no perfect answers. As you pointed out it's a small rural store. The odds are it's a pretty closed community. If someone got sick, it'd be news quickly and the town would react. You're the outsider changing the status quo. There's a reason you don't need a mask in your own home, you're already sharing that "closed community space". A rural town without many outsiders is a similar case. Why would they need masks if they know everyone coming in is already safe?
I don't think a small rural store compares to one's home. We have had no visitors to our home since early March. There were a dozen customers in the store the few minutes I was there and, presumably, others before and after I was there.
At the very least it would still be considered an enclosed public space, and everyone there was in violation of the law (whether or not you agree with the law is another issue). If I ran the store I'd be concerned with compliance, but I suppose there is the appetite, particularly in more rural areas, for defiance.
Why would they need masks if they know everyone coming in is already safe?
How can they possibly know that everyone who shops at their store is "safe"? Even in rural, supposedly closed, communities? This notion is laughable. We know about asymptomatic carriers. We know about multi-day latency between infection and symptoms showing. In the spirit of WWII victory gardens, can't we all just wear masks in public and maintain social distancing as a common tactic to fight this virus, help protect the vulnerable, and provide precious time for science to catch up?
The post said rural store, I made a theory, and then I got more data - bigger store. So likely, no, it's not a "closed community". That's kind of how these things work. Listen, learn, listen more, keep learning, refine data.
That said - a closed community can be reasonably confident. Can they be 100% No, but if the community is rural, has few visitors or visitations, then probably most people are staying home. It's a matter of weighing odds and costs. What are the costs of leaving masks on? They exist, do you recognize that? Crime is up, in part because people are wearing masks everywhere.
So "can't we all"? NO! Nor should we. We should be adults. We should be reasonable. Should those in that store probably choose to wear masks, yeah, probably, but as already demonstrated, I don't know all the details, and I'm comfortably to say neither do you, neither does the poster.
There are no simple answers - if you think there are, you're the problem.
You are exactly correct. There are no simple answers. But the combination of social distancing, mask wearing, and vigilant hand hygiene are what public health and scientific consensus espouse. So I'll stick with that advice until science catches up further with this unpredictable disease.
I'm saddened that adults in this country choose to willingly ignore science and public health best practices. It's obvious that we've failed to instill basic scientific literacy in this country.
Also, please provide substantiated evidence about crimes increasing due to mask usage. I'm legit interested in knowing about these trends.
"I'm saddened that adults in this country choose to willingly ignore science and public health best practices."
There are some, and yeah, they suck. I heard a second-hand story of a guy who went to Meijer for some beer no mask deliberately, "because he wasn't going to talk to anyone". I think he's in the wrong for several reasons.
Not everyone who chooses not to wear a mask in every conceivable situation is ignoring science. There is a certain amount of risk-reward. It's like eating an apple that hasn't been fully washed. Are you maybe eating something sprayed on the apple? Yeah, but what are the odds it's going to harm you enough to even give you gas much less poison you? If we make every decision based on the worst-possible outcome, we ought to kill ourselves, because we could barely move.
And no, I can't make my decisions based on other's perceptions - sometimes (Meijer guy above - that's whatever 200 customers vs 1 guy's comfort), but if I'm in a gas station and the cashier is behind plexy - my mask or theirs changes our odds of transmitting covid by less than a rounding error. I tend to be a rule-follower, so I wear it, but that mask means NOTHING other than perception - so if say, the cashier has theirs down, I don't care. I'm sure as hell glad they're open and if that's my unlucky lottery moment, well, then my odds of being 100% fine (given that I'm not in an at-risk group and not young but young enough) are really quite good...
General reasonable measures, sure. Slavish absolutism? No. That's just stupid - I wanted the apple, and I didn't have a sink handy... guess what, I also drank from the hose a few times when I was a kid, I managed to survive. I have slipped in the bathroom, stubbed my toe, didn't die. I cut myself making dinner one time, got stitches, learned not to get distracted. Life will have risks, and ok Covid is a (mostly) preventable one with (potentially) fatal outcomes, but just about everything I do has risks, I try to balance them with pragmatism.
Que?
(Also didn't provide substantiated crime elevation statistics that prove mask wearing protocols increase crime rates.)
IDK, I walked into the bank today to get into my safe deposit box. Put the mask on and had a very sudden urge to rob the fuck outta that bank
" Crime is up, in part because people are wearing masks everywhere. "
Crime Rates Across U.S. Drop Amid The Coronavirus Pandemic
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marleycoyne/2020/04/11/crime-rates-across-…
" Violent crime went down in 18 of the 30 cities, or 60%. "
"73% of the cities saw robberies go down in 2020 compared to 2019. "
"83% of the cities (25) saw a drop in overall property crime. "
"93% of the cities saw a decrease in reports of larceny-theft."
" 17 cities (57%) reported a decline in burglaries. "
https://www.safewise.com/blog/covid-19-crimes/
Thank you!
The only places crime is up are on websites where bots are rampant and spreading misinformation.
If someone got sick, it'd be news quickly and the town would react
Likely too late by that point. They could curb and initial outbreak, but for the people who were already exposed it's too late.
Why would they need masks if they know everyone coming in is already safe?
They don't know that. Which is why they should wear masks.
That would be great. But all the models people have trotted out so far have been way off in their predictions, so I am not taking this one to the bank.
Apparently, for no better reason than he speaks with an English accent (everyone knows that makes people smarter), Neil Ferguson was able to persuade the governments of the EU countries, the U.K., and US that there would already be millions of deaths, including almost 2,000,000 in the U.S.
I have great respect for epidemiologists, but that guy is a hack who doesn't deserve to have the influence he commands. His historical accuracy didn't justify it.
Mr Ferguson also traveled during lockdown to shag his young mistress. His quack numbers were always wrong, his data was shoddy, yet governments listened to this clown. That’s the real scary thing.
Really, "all" of the models have been "way off"? Some of them have, sure, but not all. And as the input data expands and improves, so do the models; hence the increasingly narrow range of projected outcomes. Explore this for a few minutes: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/covid-forecasts/?ex_cid=rrpromo
It's pretty easy to get a model to predict the last 10% after you are 90% of the way through.
We're 90% of the way through with less than 5% of the population infected so far? Tell me more...
Enough of them have been wrong, that if any were right, it was probably due as much to luck as to ingenious work. The narrowing of projected outcomes that your 538 link shows is more due to a much shorter time period for the predictions. It doesn't take a statistical genius to look at an existing curve and predict that that curve is most likely to continue curving as before and not suddenly inflect one way or the other.
"Appears on Reddit"... seems legit!
Yeah, I mean this was literally 10 minutes ago:
The World Health Organization warned that countries could face a second peak of coronavirus case, even before a presumed second wave of infections months from now, echoing concerns expressed by opponents of rapid reopening in countries around the world.
Mike Ryan, head of the WHO’s emergencies program, warned North America, Southeast Asia, Europe and other regions against scaling back coronavirus restrictions and public health measures too quickly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/26/coronavirus-update-us/
Hold on a second, OP. Now you trust the WHO because you like what they're saying?
I thought they were all incompetent boobs, or Chinese agents, conspiring to derail daddy's reelection campaign.
Which is it?
All of the above.
They failed in their mission the early part of this disease - objectively and without solid grounds for argument. That does not mean they are a failed organization. You make crappy arguments all the time, doesn't mean everything you say is wrong, it means that particular argument was crappy. The WHO is still out there doing its best to protect the world from diseases. If they make a report, it's probably worth looking at. Is it to be taken as 100% absolute fact? NO! Nor is the CDC, nor is Trump, nor is Obama, nor is any body of humans anywhere ever. Guess what, humans fuck up sometimes, all of them.
You haven’t met my wife.
I have.
This is a good message. It goes with your more important theme of being open minded. Although it never hurts to keep a dose of skepticism in your back pocket especially where previous evidence warrants.
Being open minded requires some skepticism. They are China biased; that's what caused them to screw up so badly. I don't think it's malicious or that it's all bad - if they were totally honest about China, a lot of evidence suggests China wouldn't let them into the country in the first place and then we wouldn't have even heard about COVID until it was already here and it would've cost us even more. So yeah, they're going to lie sometimes. If we understand that, we can try to figure out closer to "true", and do our best to balance their "wrong" with "most likely" and go from there.
Living in an imperfect world.
Hatter you fear for your personal safety and want to avoid death and people need to respect your wellbeing...yet snort coke, smoke/eat/?? weed, guzzle booze, or at least...talk a lot about it...which is it???
This may be true, but the fact I've yet to find a credible source beyond Reddit and a couple of sites that just cribbed these comments from other sites without a link to the actual source of her comments gives me pause.
I think certain regions will have a less severe second wave. But right now the US may still be in the middle to end of the initial wave and, frankly, there are still a ton of unknowns.
It's why I'm a fan of Michigan's slow and steady re-open pace. The models haven't been the most reliable sources in the past. Different states were effected more or less, and have different climates, population density, different daily patterns, etc. Doing this slowly allows us to analyze the data as we are going on, so we can map out a path forward if a 2nd wave, or similar pandemic hits, and figure out what's best for Michigan.
Well, duh, if people continue to stay home and social distance then a 2nd wave is of course unlikely
We're paying WHO $450 million for what exactly?
Stay in your basement...word is the dreaded virus won't get you there.