[Snorlax94]

Follow-up on the hair stylists. Good news. And once again, everyone needs to wear masks. (Though we should remember Great Clips haircuts are very fast)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/24/us/missou...index.html

Two hairstylists who had coronavirus saw 140 clients. Officials are studying how no one got infected[/b]

(CNN)Two Missouri hairstylists who worked while they had coronavirus did not infect the 140 clients they served even though they had symptoms at the time, local health officials said.

[Snorlax94]

Follow-up on the hair stylists. Good news. And once again, everyone needs to wear masks. (Though we should remember Great Clips haircuts are very fast)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/24/us/missou...index.html

Two hairstylists who had coronavirus saw 140 clients. Officials are studying how no one got infected[/b]

(CNN)Two Missouri hairstylists who worked while they had coronavirus did not infect the 140 clients they served even though they had symptoms at the time, local health officials said.

[2006alum]

That's really encouraging news. It would be interesting to know whether most of the people who got haircuts were not among the high risk groups. If not, and if everyone wore a mask, avoided touching their mouth, nose, or eyes, etc., then it's possible that these partial mitigation efforts can go a long way towards reducing the spread.

But if that's true, it does make me wonder how the R0 is still not creeping below 1 in many places, since I would have thought the "barber with coronavirus" scenario would have all the makings of a superspreader event.

[2006alum]

That's really encouraging news. It would be interesting to know whether most of the people who got haircuts were not among the high risk groups. If not, and if everyone wore a mask, avoided touching their mouth, nose, or eyes, etc., then it's possible that these partial mitigation efforts can go a long way towards reducing the spread.

But if that's true, it does make me wonder how the R0 is still not creeping below 1 in many places, since I would have thought the "barber with coronavirus" scenario would have all the makings of a superspreader event.

[burger]

That's really encouraging news. It would be interesting to know whether most of the people who got haircuts were not among the high risk groups. If not, and if everyone wore a mask, avoided touching their mouth, nose, or eyes, etc., then it's possible that these partial mitigation efforts can go a long way towards reducing the spread.

But if that's true, it does make me wonder how the R0 is still not creeping below 1 in many places, since I would have thought the "barber with coronavirus" scenario would have all the makings of a superspreader event.

How long is a typical men's haircut?  15 minutes?  There's some evidence that longer-term contact is required, and even then there's no guarantee of spreading.  IIRC, in China, <30% of people living in the same house with an infected person got the virus.  So, maybe masks + short-duration contact means that the risk of spreading is low.

On the other hand, this is really just n=2.  If the two hair stylists just happened to be relatively poor spreaders of the virus, this may not be telling us anything.

[burger]

That's really encouraging news. It would be interesting to know whether most of the people who got haircuts were not among the high risk groups. If not, and if everyone wore a mask, avoided touching their mouth, nose, or eyes, etc., then it's possible that these partial mitigation efforts can go a long way towards reducing the spread.

But if that's true, it does make me wonder how the R0 is still not creeping below 1 in many places, since I would have thought the "barber with coronavirus" scenario would have all the makings of a superspreader event.

How long is a typical men's haircut?  15 minutes?  There's some evidence that longer-term contact is required, and even then there's no guarantee of spreading.  IIRC, in China, <30% of people living in the same house with an infected person got the virus.  So, maybe masks + short-duration contact means that the risk of spreading is low.

On the other hand, this is really just n=2.  If the two hair stylists just happened to be relatively poor spreaders of the virus, this may not be telling us anything.

[OutsiderFan]

My Nurse friend was tested yesterday, amid new guidelines that all staff will be tested every week from now on. Also tested were all the residents at his rehab facility.  Nobody tested positive. This is a facility that was ravaged by Covid in April. Nobody in the building tested positive this week.

Previously, some of those who showed no symptoms tested positive, and some of those who appeared to have symptoms tested negative. I've heard a lot of stories of people testing negative and then testing positive.  Don't really know what to make of it all.

I continue to believe the most vulnerable have already been stuck dead by the virus in places peak has taken place. What we still don't know is what are the long term impacts from being infected. We have this assumption that people recover and get back normal. But there are also examples of people suffering long term problems, and there may be more we don't know about yet.

[OutsiderFan]

My Nurse friend was tested yesterday, amid new guidelines that all staff will be tested every week from now on. Also tested were all the residents at his rehab facility.  Nobody tested positive. This is a facility that was ravaged by Covid in April. Nobody in the building tested positive this week.

Previously, some of those who showed no symptoms tested positive, and some of those who appeared to have symptoms tested negative. I've heard a lot of stories of people testing negative and then testing positive.  Don't really know what to make of it all.

I continue to believe the most vulnerable have already been stuck dead by the virus in places peak has taken place. What we still don't know is what are the long term impacts from being infected. We have this assumption that people recover and get back normal. But there are also examples of people suffering long term problems, and there may be more we don't know about yet.

[M T]

 It would be interesting to know whether most of the people who got haircuts were not among the high risk groups.

Why?  Perhaps you're not under the impression that younger adults are less likely to get infected, and you're just looking to see if older adults were foolish enough to risk close exposure.

Generally, we speak of the "high risk group" as those whose outcome is often worse or fatal, not that they are especially likely to get the disease. 

In SCC, case frequency is higher for older age groups (esp. for <20 and >80) but the dramatic difference is when you look at deaths. 
In SCC, case frequency relative to population is about 2.2x for the age group 81+ versus 21-30.
(S. Korea noted  that 20-30yo got it more frequently because they were going to clubs & such.  Congregate housing will impact exposure (and thus cases) if infections have run wild in those situations.)

SCC cases %/ [/url][url=https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?g=0500000US06085&tid=ACSST5Y2017.S0101&q=S0101]age demographics (case%/pop%) / deaths  (deaths% / cases%) by age group:
The ratios give you a sense of the association of age to infection rate  and death rate(if infected).
(Note: age demographics are for, say, 20-29 rather than 21-30)
0-19: 7.35%  / 25.2% (0.29x)    / 0%    (0)
21-30 13.82%  /  14.0% (0.99x)     / 0%   (0)
31-40: 17.25% /  15.3%  (1.13x)   / 2.74%  (0.16x)
41-50: 17.38% /  14.6% (1.19x)    / 3.42%   (0.20x)
51-60: 16.69% /  13.3%  (1.25x)  / 12.33%  (0.74x)
61-70: 12.01% /   9.2% (1.31x)    / 17.12%  (1.43x)
71-80: 8.08% /    5.2% (1.55x)     / 27.40%  (3.39x)
81+: 4.62+2.44%=7.06% /   31K   3.3%  (2.14x)  / 20.55+16.44% = 36.99%  (4.45x; 6.74x = 5.24x)

As someone pointed out, SCC (3032 cases, 146 deaths) is anomalous when compared to larger samples because it does not have deaths in the younger age groups.

Converting to number of cases and deaths (so far)  and CFR (so far)
61-70:  364  cases, 25 deaths,  7%
71-80:  245 cases, 40 deaths,  16%
81-90:  140 cases, 30 deaths,  21%
91+: 74 cases, 24 deaths,  32%

To make these numbers real, I relate the CFR for 71-80 as being equivalent to playing Russian Roulette with a six-shot revolver.

I apologize for the false precision in these numbers.  With only 146 deaths, having a number such as 2.74% is misleading.

[M T]

 It would be interesting to know whether most of the people who got haircuts were not among the high risk groups.

Why?  Perhaps you're not under the impression that younger adults are less likely to get infected, and you're just looking to see if older adults were foolish enough to risk close exposure.

Generally, we speak of the "high risk group" as those whose outcome is often worse or fatal, not that they are especially likely to get the disease. 

In SCC, case frequency is higher for older age groups (esp. for <20 and >80) but the dramatic difference is when you look at deaths. 
In SCC, case frequency relative to population is about 2.2x for the age group 81+ versus 21-30.
(S. Korea noted  that 20-30yo got it more frequently because they were going to clubs & such.  Congregate housing will impact exposure (and thus cases) if infections have run wild in those situations.)

SCC cases %/ [/url][url=https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?g=0500000US06085&tid=ACSST5Y2017.S0101&q=S0101]age demographics (case%/pop%) / deaths  (deaths% / cases%) by age group:
The ratios give you a sense of the association of age to infection rate  and death rate(if infected).
(Note: age demographics are for, say, 20-29 rather than 21-30)
0-19: 7.35%  / 25.2% (0.29x)    / 0%    (0)
21-30 13.82%  /  14.0% (0.99x)     / 0%   (0)
31-40: 17.25% /  15.3%  (1.13x)   / 2.74%  (0.16x)
41-50: 17.38% /  14.6% (1.19x)    / 3.42%   (0.20x)
51-60: 16.69% /  13.3%  (1.25x)  / 12.33%  (0.74x)
61-70: 12.01% /   9.2% (1.31x)    / 17.12%  (1.43x)
71-80: 8.08% /    5.2% (1.55x)     / 27.40%  (3.39x)
81+: 4.62+2.44%=7.06% /   31K   3.3%  (2.14x)  / 20.55+16.44% = 36.99%  (4.45x; 6.74x = 5.24x)

As someone pointed out, SCC (3032 cases, 146 deaths) is anomalous when compared to larger samples because it does not have deaths in the younger age groups.

Converting to number of cases and deaths (so far)  and CFR (so far)
61-70:  364  cases, 25 deaths,  7%
71-80:  245 cases, 40 deaths,  16%
81-90:  140 cases, 30 deaths,  21%
91+: 74 cases, 24 deaths,  32%

To make these numbers real, I relate the CFR for 71-80 as being equivalent to playing Russian Roulette with a six-shot revolver.

I apologize for the false precision in these numbers.  With only 146 deaths, having a number such as 2.74% is misleading.

[2006alum]

 It would be interesting to know whether most of the people who got haircuts were not among the high risk groups.

Why?  Perhaps you're not under the impression that younger adults are less likely to get infected, and you're just looking to see if older adults were foolish enough to risk close exposure.

Well, mostly my thought was that younger people are probably more likely to be asymptomatic if they are infected, so if >50% of those exposed were never tested for COVID-19, if they were all young people, the lack of symptom development might be less surprising than if they were all older people or those with co-morbidities. And if they were all grannies in their 80s and there was still not one single identified infection or set of reported symptoms, that would suggest we can "re-open" personal services like haircuts quite a bit and, with appropriate precautions, have relatively little to worry about.

[2006alum]

 It would be interesting to know whether most of the people who got haircuts were not among the high risk groups.

Why?  Perhaps you're not under the impression that younger adults are less likely to get infected, and you're just looking to see if older adults were foolish enough to risk close exposure.

Well, mostly my thought was that younger people are probably more likely to be asymptomatic if they are infected, so if >50% of those exposed were never tested for COVID-19, if they were all young people, the lack of symptom development might be less surprising than if they were all older people or those with co-morbidities. And if they were all grannies in their 80s and there was still not one single identified infection or set of reported symptoms, that would suggest we can "re-open" personal services like haircuts quite a bit and, with appropriate precautions, have relatively little to worry about.