Let's Keep an Eye on Texas and Mississippi

[probinson]

I cannot find data for February 21. How do you account for the decline and then increase? You had said the curve was already dropping rapidly. Why was it dropping?

Good question. It was dropping before the medical mask mandate, so that's not it, and there was a regular mask mandate clear back on April 27 with an 86% reported compliance on October 7 just before cases skyrocketed, so that's not it...

Perhaps our mitigation measures are all in vain. It gives us the warm fuzzy feeling of "doing something", but that "something" seems to be largely irrelevant. This trend can be seen literally all over the world. The virus hits peaks and valleys as it pleases irrespective of any mitigation measures we put in place in a vain attempt to "control" it.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Good question. It was dropping before the medical mask mandate, so that's not it, and there was a regular mask mandate clear back on April 27 with an 86% reported compliance on October 7 just before cases skyrocketed, so that's not it...

Perhaps our mitigation measures are all in vain. It gives us the warm fuzzy feeling of "doing something", but that "something" seems to be largely irrelevant. This trend can be seen literally all over the world. The virus hits peaks and valleys as it pleases irrespective of any mitigation measures we put in place in a vain attempt to "control" it.

It seems logical though that any measures like social distancing ought to help. The virus cant spread if people isolate. Mitigate but not stop it. No one knows would it might have bene without our efforts.

 

[hedrick]

I cannot find data for February 21. How do you account for the decline and then increase? You had said the curve was already dropping rapidly. Why was it dropping? hedrick says seasonality. Possibly so.

Not just weather. There are several things going on. There was nationally a peak for holidays. This is quite understandable, since people gathered together. It was also cold, though the peak looks to be more timed for the holidays than the minimum temperature. We're now in a period when there was a decrease after the holidays. The exact timing seems to differ from region to region, but the whole US saw both the rise and the fall.

Second, we have warmer weather. I don't know how much that impacts the virus spread directly, and how much the effect results from people doing more outside, which is safer, but the relationship seems obvious.

Third, vaccination is presumably beginning to be enough to have some effect.

In the other direction, every state, not just Texas, has relaxed constraints. Not the same, in part because the constraints had been different.

Also in the other direction, we have variants that are known to spread more rapidly than the original Covid. They seem to be higher in Texas than many other states. Also in NJ (and presumably all of metro NYC). Projections are that the B 1.1.7 variant is going to increase rapidly. That's the main reason NJ is worried.

Both of these last things are probably what's driving the nation-wide increase of the virus. Changes don't happen at the same time in all states, but there's at least some sign that Texas is starting to see the increase as well.

I assume that the latest peak won't be as large as previous ones, because of the combination of warming and vaccinations. But if everyone starts behaving as they did in 2019, more people will get Covid. I'm not convinced we have very good models, but you can look at one worst-case model at IHME | COVID-19 Projections.

How much care is it worth to avoid what could be 50,000 deaths? That's a personal judgement. Maybe it's not worth all of us continuing to be careful. My own state (NJ) has loosened up some, but still has some capacity restrictions on restaurants and other types of gathering, and a mask mandate.

 

[probinson]

It seems logical though that any measures like social distancing ought to help. The virus cant spread if people isolate. Mitigate but not stop it. No one knows would it might have bene without our efforts.

This is somewhat true. However, we do have comparisons of what has happened with different mitigation measures in place. You would expect that if your statement were true, states that locked down the hardest would have the least amount of infection and death. But they don't. In many cases, the opposite is true

Consider that by forcing people to isolate, we simply prolonged the inevitable. The CDC data shows that the risk of COVID to those under 65 is remarkably small;

That data clearly shows that the virus poses a significantly higher threat to those who are older. For those 65 and under, COVID-19 poses the same or less risk of death as contracting the seasonal flu. Yet we all were told we must stay home to protect the vulnerable. I would suggest to you that by isolating and allowing the virus to fester, we harmed the vulnerable FAR MORE than if we had attempted focused protection. Especially the ill-advised decisions of our governments and health experts to send patients sick with COVID-19 back to nursing homes, the single most vulnerable population. We closed universities, which forced young people to live with their elderly parents and grandparents. We quarantined the sick with the well. We "locked down", but not really. Those that were fortunate enough to be able to work from home (like me) were "safer at home" while we sacrificed the working class under the altruistic sounding "essential worker" title. And the results are striking.

On the other hand, had we made a concerted effort to protect the most vulnerable among us, perhaps our death numbers wouldn't be so high. According to the data above, more than 80% of our deaths in the US were from those 65 or older, yet we did nearly nothing to protect them. Almost every single action we took put that population at greater risk. And then when vaccines became available, did we start with the oldest, most vulnerable? Nope. We had to make it up to the much less vulnerable young "essential workers" that we had shoved out in front to take the brunt of the damage.

So I agree with you. We don't know what would have happened without these mitigation efforts. But there is every reason to believe that the result could have been much better without these efforts, and instead implementing efforts that would have focused protection where it was needed most.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

On the other hand, had we made a concerted effort to protect the most vulnerable among us, perhaps our death numbers wouldn't be so high.

What would have protected them if not masks and social distancing?

 

[probinson]

What would have protected them if not masks and social distancing?

The same thing that has always protected people from viruses; staying away from sick people.

Here is an excerpt from the FAQ page of the Great Barrington Declaration website (Great Barrington Declaration FAQ)

Don’t the current age-wide lockdown strategies properly protect the old?
No, on the contrary. There have been many unnecessary deaths, and especially among the urban working class. Current lockdown policies have failed to protect the vulnerable. Concrete examples of these failures include:

• Requiring older “essential” workers and members of the working class that cannot afford not to work to be put in work situations where they may be exposed to the virus.
• Failure to protect nursing home residents from exposure to the virus from staff members, visitors, and other residents.
• No provision for elderly people living in multi-generational homes to be shielded should a family member be exposed to the virus. 

How do we protect the elderly in nursing homes and other care settings?
A focused protection strategy would include frequent testing of nursing home staff members that are not already immune, testing of visitors, and less staff rotation so that residents only interact with a limited number of staff people. COVID-19 infected individuals should not be sent to nursing homes, and all new residents should be tested. Sequestering of care home residents who have COVID-19 is also important. (Note: Originally the Declaration specified “PCR testing”, but we have changed that to “testing”, as there are other tests available.)

How do we protect older people living at home?
During high transmission times, older people should be offered home delivery of groceries and other essentials. When seeing friends and relatives, it is best to do it outdoors. Testing should be available for relatives and friends who want to visit. Free N95 masks should be provided for when they cannot avoid potential exposure.

How do we protect older people still in the work force?
People in their 60s are at somewhat high risk, and many are still in the workforce. Those that can work from home should be allowed to do so. For example, teachers in their 60s could teach online courses, or help fellow teachers with grading exams, essays and homework. Those that cannot work from home should be funded to take a 3 to 6-month sabbatical. In addition, workplace disability laws should require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to protect high COVID19 risk workers without losing their jobs.

How do we protect older people in multigenerational homes?
University closures and the economic displacement caused by lockdowns has led millions of young adults to live with older parents, increasing regular close interactions across generations. We know that older people living with working-age adults have higher COVID-19 risk than older people living with other older people. There is no further excess risk if also living with children though. This is the toughest challenge, and family specific solutions must be found. If the working-age household members can work from home, they can isolate together. If that is not possible, the older family member might temporarily be able to live with an older friend or sibling, with whom they can self-isolate together during the height of community transmission. As a last resort, empty hotel rooms could be used for temporary housing.
​

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So Social Distancing.

 

[probinson]

So Social Distancing.

Um, no.

"Social distancing", as it's come to be known in this pandemic, is making sure you keep 6 feet (or 1 meter, depending on whether you believe the CDC or the WHO) away from people while you're out and about. What is proposed above is closer to isolation or a quarantine. However and importantly, it would leave that decision up to each individual. It would not be "mandated" that if you're 65 and older that you must stay home. The risk would be accurately communicated and it would be up to each individual to decide for themselves. I know that's a pretty foreign concept in our current environment, but before the pandemic, people undertook their own risk mitigation procedures every single day without needing the government to "mandate" their safety. And of course, that was also before we had to tune into the news to find out if it was OK to hug grandma yet...

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Um, no.

"Social distancing", as it's come to be known in this pandemic, is making sure you keep 6 feet (or 1 meter, depending on whether you believe the CDC or the WHO) away from people while you're out and about. What is proposed above is closer to isolation or a quarantine. However and importantly, it would leave that decision up to each individual. It would not be "mandated" that if you're 65 and older that you must stay home. The risk would be accurately communicated and it would be up to each individual to decide for themselves. I know that's a pretty foreign concept in our current environment, but before the pandemic, people undertook their own risk mitigation procedures every single day without needing the government to "mandate" their safety. And of course, that was also before we had to tune into the news to find out if it was OK to hug grandma yet...

Not everyone. In fact there were many, including at the White House, who flaunted even minimal precautions.

 

[probinson]

Back to the OP...

Here's Texas as of April 3, one month after the OP;

...and Mississippi;

Still no surge to speak of.

According to the New York Times COVID tracker, Texas has a lower 7-day moving average of new infections than 35 other states and Mississippi has a lower 7-day moving average than 46 other states.

Seems like removing mandates didn't really hurt anything.

 

[tall73]

Texas:

Yes, still going the right direction. Hope it continues.

 

[jgarden]

The top 8 states with the highest 7-day moving average of daily new cases/100,000 are all states with mask mandates.

New Jersey currently leads the pack at 45 per 100,000. NYT classifies them as higher and staying high. In fact, all of those 8 states with mask mandates are classified the same.

Nearly 2 weeks after restrictions were relaxed, Texas currently clocks in at 29th with 13 per 100,000. NYT classifies them as lower and staying low. Iowa (31st) and Mississippi (38th) (both states also dropped their restrictions) are also in this category.

View attachment 296685

Source: Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count

Just as with the first COVID-19 wave, the new variant appears to be starting on the east coast and working its way west!

 

[FreeinChrist]

As COVID-19 cases decline across Texas, testing rates are dropping, too.

COVID-19 testing has dropped to its lowest point in Texas since last fall, and health experts say the trend reflects the overall improvement in the course of the pandemic statewide.

During the February winter storm that left millions of Texans without access to electricity or water, testing rates dipped below 50,000 tests per day on average for the first time since September.

Testing levels rebounded after the winter storm, but the number of tests reported in March is still significantly lower than during December, January and February, at the peak of the pandemic in Texas.....


Although COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations are decreasing in Texas, there are still significant levels of disease in the community, and with new variants spreading, testing is crucial to staying on top of the virus, said Dr. James McDeavitt, senior vice president and dean of clinical affairs at Baylor College of Medicine.

​

 

[probinson]

April 13 data.

Texas;

Mississippi;

Are we still pretending like it was "neanderthal thinking" to revoke the mandates and mitigation measures in these states even though there have been no negative repercussions whatsoever?

 

[jgarden]

Governor Abbott has adopted the same management style as the Mayor who kept the beaches open in "JAWS!"

 

[Hammster]

Governor Abbott has adopted the same management style as the Mayor who kept the beaches open in "JAWS!"

Funny, though, that in the movie, things got worse. In Texas, things are getting better.

Not a good comparison.

 

[probinson]

Are we still keeping an eye on Texas?

It's been exactly 2 weeks since the Texas Rangers played their opening game to a sold out, mostly maskless, crowd of over 40,000 fans. Still no surge to speak of...

So I'm curious... exactly how long do we have to keep an eye on Texas before we will admit that lifting mitigation measures has had no negative effect on the state? I mean, it's been 47 days since the OP. Is it safe to assume that President Biden's "neanderthal thinking" comment was inaccurate and he should apologize to the state for such a demonstrably wrong label?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Are we still keeping an eye on Texas?

It's been exactly 2 weeks since the Texas Rangers played their opening game to a sold out, mostly maskless, crowd of over 40,000 fans. Still no surge to speak of...

View attachment 297976

So I'm curious... exactly how long do we have to keep an eye on Texas before we will admit that lifting mitigation measures has had no negative effect on the state? I mean, it's been 47 days since the OP. Is it safe to assume that President Biden's "neanderthal thinking" comment was inaccurate and he should apologize to the state for such a demonstrably wrong label?

Maybe so. I did not start the thread to rub anyone's nose in it. I though it could be a good way to find out the truth about social distancing and masks. But I think the vaccine helps.

 

[probinson]

Maybe so. I did not start the thread to rub anyone's nose in it. I though it could be a good way to find out the truth about social distancing and masks. But I think the vaccine helps.

Oh, I have no doubt that the vaccine helps. But I think it's becoming pretty obvious that the alleged "mitigation measures" we've been told "work", really, really don't.

It's also very odd to me that the Director of the CDC rebuffed the idea of sending more vaccine to Michigan and instead suggested they should lockdown again. I think that might be the definition of insanity; doing the same thing and expecting different results.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Maybe so. I did not start the thread to rub anyone's nose in it. I though it could be a good way to find out the truth about social distancing and masks. But I think the vaccine helps.

I don't think the rates in Texas mean much related to masks. New Mexico has a mandate and their graph is like this:

Louisiana has a mask mandate and they look like this:

Seems that across the south, numbers are down except Florida.