[BostonCard]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/healt...d=tw-share



So the evidence isn't really there? It is really unfortunate that we now have to worry about whether our public health officials are actually looking at the data? We have seen evidence of this for a while, but it does appear there is a bit of grasping at straws going on.

Right.  When people say "follow the science", that means that if the data doesn't support your hypothesis that small gatherings are a nexus of spread of the virus, then stop telling people that their small gatherings are spreading the virus.  I'm as guilty as anyone in following the conventional wisdom that small gatherings were bad, but if the data is not there to support it, then the assumption needs to be reassessed.

I really do wish we would have much better data available in near real time to guide us.  You keep harping on the failure of contact tracing,  epidemiology and local public health, and I don't think that can be emphasized enough.  It isn't just contact tracing on an individual level and stopping individual chains of transmission (which is important, to be sure), but also in learning patterns that place people at high risk.  I was struck by two comments in the article:

“More and more, our exposures are due to community spread and are not traceable to a single event,” said Nicole Peske, chief communications officer for the North Dakota Department of Health. “Many individuals are reporting more than one exposure.”

and

In Minnesota, up to the week ending Nov. 12, there were about 202,000 coronavirus infections. Nearly 12,000 were attributed to restaurants, bars and sports sites, and about 17,000 to congregate care settings.

Yet more than 115,000 of the cases could not be traced back to a known setting. “Identifying any one activity as the driver of the surge misses the fact that all activities become riskier as local case levels rise,” Dr. Murray said.

Our limited infrastructure was challenged before the fall surge; now it is completely overwhelmed.  But at the least we (our public health and government officials) should be focused on the low-hanging fruit.  Find the activities that are clearly leading to the most infections and restrict or risk-reduce those.  Then repeat the process.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/healt...d=tw-share



So the evidence isn't really there? It is really unfortunate that we now have to worry about whether our public health officials are actually looking at the data? We have seen evidence of this for a while, but it does appear there is a bit of grasping at straws going on.

Right.  When people say "follow the science", that means that if the data doesn't support your hypothesis that small gatherings are a nexus of spread of the virus, then stop telling people that their small gatherings are spreading the virus.  I'm as guilty as anyone in following the conventional wisdom that small gatherings were bad, but if the data is not there to support it, then the assumption needs to be reassessed.

I really do wish we would have much better data available in near real time to guide us.  You keep harping on the failure of contact tracing,  epidemiology and local public health, and I don't think that can be emphasized enough.  It isn't just contact tracing on an individual level and stopping individual chains of transmission (which is important, to be sure), but also in learning patterns that place people at high risk.  I was struck by two comments in the article:

“More and more, our exposures are due to community spread and are not traceable to a single event,” said Nicole Peske, chief communications officer for the North Dakota Department of Health. “Many individuals are reporting more than one exposure.”

and

In Minnesota, up to the week ending Nov. 12, there were about 202,000 coronavirus infections. Nearly 12,000 were attributed to restaurants, bars and sports sites, and about 17,000 to congregate care settings.

Yet more than 115,000 of the cases could not be traced back to a known setting. “Identifying any one activity as the driver of the surge misses the fact that all activities become riskier as local case levels rise,” Dr. Murray said.

Our limited infrastructure was challenged before the fall surge; now it is completely overwhelmed.  But at the least we (our public health and government officials) should be focused on the low-hanging fruit.  Find the activities that are clearly leading to the most infections and restrict or risk-reduce those.  Then repeat the process.

BC