COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[russ_watters]

Even thought the chain is different, the President is still at the top.

I understand that, but I think the difference matters. The military chain of command is required by law to follow lawful orders from the CINC, whereas non-military chains of command don't have that feature. It means the President can literally call a Navy captain and issue an order and the captain goes to jail if s/he doesn't follow it. For non-military, the President's only real power to give orders comes from threatening to fire the relevant cabinet member. Eventually he can get what he wants, but it can take a while and is politically unpalatable.

 

[russ_watters]

Could the two Holland America cruise ships be sent to Guantanamo Bay? I don't know if they have the right facilities there to dock a cruise ship. Does anyone else know? But if it is possible, President Trump could order that without asking for permission or cooperation from anyone else.

No he can't: that's an act of war.

The other related/relevant difference between the US Navy and Coast Guard is that as a civilian police force, they can perform police activities on US soil and in US territorial waters. The President can't order the Navy to force another country's civilian cruise ships into a US military port, and the Coast Guard can't do it either unless they happen to stray within the US territorial waters of Guantanamo bay (and under some unspecified legal authority).

There's also the state-federal separation of powers issue, which is part of why most of the Covid-19 responses are state led: the President doesn't have local law enforcement power, and can't do things like seize ports except by declaration of some national disaster/war. He could technically do that here, but again, that's a rare an unpalatable thing - you can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of times something like that has happened in US history (for the Coast Guard specifically, the last time was WWII).

 

[Vanadium 50]

In this regard, the Coast Guard is no different than the Army. The President can call a USGC captain just like a USN captain. It would be odd in both cases, of course. One could actually argue it's a bit more direct, since DOD has a bunch of layers in the Pentagon.

 

[russ_watters]

In this regard, the Coast Guard is no different than the Army. The President can call a USGC captain just like a USN captain. It would be odd in both cases, of course. One could actually argue it's a bit more direct, since DOD has a bunch of layers in the Pentagon.

Again, I don't think so. He can ask, but they aren't legally obligated to follow orders from him. I disobey my boss all the time. He can fire me if he decides it's important enough, but he can't throw me in jail for it. The President can't even directly fire people except his cabinet heads and other direct staff.

[edit]
I'll concede the point. Given that the Coast Guard is under the UCMJ, the legal implications for the chain of command are probably the same as the rest of the military. However, due to its primary role as a civilian police force, what constitutes a "lawful order" in its day to day operation (both nationally and internationally) is very different for the Coast Guard than for the regular branches of the military.

I do have a bit of "on the ground" experience with this from my time in the Navy in the late '90s: I participated in counter-drug operations off the coast of Ecuador. Since the Navy is not authorized to conduct law enforcement (to do so against foreign ships would be an act of war), we handed over control of my ship to a small coast guard force to conduct interdiction. We essentially transferred the ship to the Coast Guard.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The President can directly fire or demote military (including the Coast Guard) officers. Officers serve at the pleasure of the President. 10 CFR 1116A is the statute. It does say "in time of war", but that seems to be a continuous state of affairs. (A court would have to rule on this re: the War Powers Act, but we both know that neither Congress nor the Executive wants the War Powers Act anywhere near a federal court).

But i tire of this. Just as the President isn't going to call the skipper of a destroyer, he's not going to call the skipper of a cutter. So this is theoretical and will likley remain so for a long time. I think the more relevant issue is that the cruise ships are legally, not US ships.

 

[russ_watters]

But i tire of this. Just as the President isn't going to call the skipper of a destroyer, he's not going to call the skipper of a cutter. So this is theoretical and will likley remain so for a long time. I think the more relevant issue is that the cruise ships are legally, not US ships.

Yes, sorry for the sidebar -- that makes it odd that the Coast Guard seems to be openly defying his wishes, but I guess if it wasn't an official order, there's no issue there.

I agree the most relevant issue is the legality of the use of the Coast Guard (or Navy) to intervene.

Perhaps we'll get back to the issue of Presidential powers when/if someone asks why the President hasn't implemented direct or national orders for things like stay-at-home/lockdowns...

 

[gmax137]

when/if someone asks why the President hasn't implemented direct or national orders for things like stay-at-home/lockdowns...

OK, I'm not going to ask "why the President hasn't..." because I think I know the answer.

But I do wonder, "when was the last time such an order was issued by a US president?"

EDIT: I'm going to say, it has probably never happened
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/02/8252...le-to-order-a-national-quarantine-experts-say

EDIT2:

Moss says the president would have to "either personally determine, or get the CDC director to state in writing, that the entire country is reasonably believed to have been exposed to the coronavirus," which Moss says would be "politically treacherous" and "turn the federal law on its head."

Not to mention, that if everyone had already been exposed, lockdown would be pointless, right?

 

[Mary Conrads Sanburn]

Presidential Message on National Financial Capability Month, 2020

ECONOMY & JOBS

Issued on: April 1, 2020​

During National Financial Capability Month, we recognize the importance of financial literacy to a free and prosperous society, and we commit to ensuring that all Americans have the resources they need to make informed financial choices and provide opportunities for a brighter and more secure future.

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and workforce. As we continue to face the challenges posed by the Coronavirus pandemic, my Administration is working tirelessly to ensure that individuals and business owners have the information they need to overcome recent hardships. I am continuing to take concrete actions to protect the American economy and the hardworking men and women of our Nation. Last week, I signed legislation to provide historic economic relief to small businesses and workers, including $350 billion in job retention loans that will be forgiven if workers are paid. Additionally, at my instruction, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is actively working to respond to and assist small business owners in alleviating their financial burdens to help them and their employees recover from this pandemic. From providing targeted financial assistance to supplying helpful tips and best practices, the SBA is helping America’s small businesses navigate this pandemic and ultimately thrive.

Furthermore, to ensure that Americans have financial flexibility for the next several months, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service are moving this year’s Tax Day from April 15 to July 15. All taxpayers, individuals, and businesses will have this additional time to file and make payments without interest or penalties.

This month, as we continue to come together as one Nation, we will use every tool at our disposal to create an economic environment that will benefit all Americans. There are resources available to you and your family through the Department of the Treasury’s website that will help you make sound financial decisions in these uncertain times. Financial literacy is critical throughout all stages of adulthood, especially during crises and unexpected life events.

Throughout this National Financial Capability Month and in the months ahead, I encourage all Americans to seek ways in which they can further develop and enhance their financial skill sets and position themselves for success. Together, we will improve our personal financial literacy and help secure a brighter, more prosperous future for all generations.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/presidential-message-national-financial-capability-month-2020/

 

[morrobay]

I don't think that's true. The USCG is essentially a civilian police force under the department of Homeland security. The President can transfer it to the Navy, but that's a rare and unpalatable order.

DHS is under the executive branch, but the pathway of orders is much less direct.

[edit] Hmmm...the wiki on it says the US Code lists it as a "US Armed Force", but I'm not sure there's a practical reality in that. The laws (both federal and international) under which the USCG operates are very different from that of the US Navy.

The Coast Guard is definitely a branch of the military and becomes part of the navy during time of war. It was under the dept. of defense while I was in 4 years. The transfer to homeland security just confuses things and was as unnecessary as that department itself. Sure the functions of the Coast Guard are different from the Navy but all the authority is derived from federal statutes. So maybe you could call it a federal police force IE interception of drug smuggling by sea across the border. But no way is it a "civilian police force"

 

[kadiot]

Amid Covid19 crisis, US insurance cos. warn tens of millions of Americans do not have health cover. I would understand this in PH but in America? What will happen to them past this crisis if they need treatment? Incomprehensible...

 

[jedishrfu]

Amid Covid19 crisis, US insurance cos. warn tens of millions of Americans do not have health cover. I would understand this in PH but in America? What will happen to them past this crisis if they need treatment? Incomprehensible...

The US has been in turmoil over healthcare for decades so this is nothing new. It will change when we catch up to the rest of the world with healthcare for all.

However, until that time let's focus on COVID-19 specific stuff in this thread rather than the political theater of the US Healthcare system.

 

[jim mcnamara]

@kadiot Let's not go down that road. All it will do is derail this thread. (veiled hint ).
Okay?

 

[atyy]

It's a few days behind now, but this presentation from UT Austin pointed to an interesting graph put together by Stephanie Jolly: https://www.wave3.com/2020/03/24/graph-comparing-ky-tenn-coronavirus-responses-goes-viral/

Up to March 22, the growth of cases in Kentucky is less than in Tennessee. This may be because Kentucky implemented social distancing measures earlier.

 

[atyy]

Kentucky is putting ankle monitors on Coronavirus patients who ignore self-isolation order
https://fox59.com/news/kentucky-is-...rus-patients-who-ignore-self-isolation-order/

 

[OCR]

Kentucky is putting ankle monitors on Coronavirus patients who ignore self-isolation order

Ankle monitors?. . . Ankle monitors?? . We don't need no stinkin' ankle monitors!

I really don't have a strong desire to go outside, anyway. . . .

.

 

[mfb]

"Enough time" and "enough data" are highly uncertain things. The data is thin and vague in some ways, overwhelmingly large and unwieldy in others, so it is perfectly reasonable and completely unsurprising that different countries/entities reacted very differently from each other. Yes, South Korea shows that it was *possible* to use a catch-and-contain strategy, but in order to accomplish that they reacted much faster and more aggressively than any other country I'm aware of.

History may judge South Korea's reaction "right" and everyone else's "wrong", but when an awful lot of people independently come to the "wrong" conclusion, I think you have to accept that reality at face value: under most systems of logic, political philosophy, risk tolerance, institutional inertia, etc. the data did not support an aggressive response. Being "right" makes South Korea the outlier - the one who's reaction doesn't make sense - not the rest of the world.

South Korea is a country that listened closely to experts.
Too many other governments were more concerned about their public image, about their re-election chances, about selling their private stocks before taking public action, and similar things, while too many people in these countries were more worried about their holidays than about the pandemic.
The reaction of South Korea made perfectly sense. It's just rare to see governments and most people listening to experts.

Researchers from the University of Nebraska Medical Centre and the National Strategic Research Institute at the University of Nebraska took air samples from 11 rooms where 13 confirmed cases were being treated.

As well as finding genetic material from the Coronavirus on lavatories and on everyday items, 63.2 per cent of air samples taken inside the rooms and 66.7 per cent of those taken outside also showed traces.

Note that "genetic material" doesn't mean virions (i.e. infection risk). Just some genetic material on its own isn't infectious.

 

[kadiot]

The Philippine government is planning to start the "mass testing" of COVID-19 Person Under Investigation (PUI) and Person Under Monitoring (PUM) on April 14, 2020.

1. Mass testing is not testing everyone. It is “risk-based” testing. Basically, you test people in increasing circles of risk: test the PUI, then the close contacts, then the community. It is not a shotgun approach because no country can test every single citizen for COVID-19. So we need to figure out our priorities for testing, and WHAT TEST to use. You CAN’T test 100M people, but you can test the MOST AT RISK.

2. Understand the limitations of testing. No TEST is 100% accurate. There are trade-offs. The probability that a test is positive when the disease is REALLY present is called the SENSITIVITY. The probability that a negative test actually means the disease is REALLY NOT there is called the SPECIFICITY.

3. A good sensitivity means that a test is able to detect disease MOST of the time if it is PRESENT in a patient. Having a negative test when the disease is PRESENT is called a FALSE NEGATIVE. In other words, the test failed to detect a sick person.

4. A good specificity means that a test is NEGATIVE MOST of the time if there is NO DISEASE in a patient. Having a positive test when the disease is ABSENT is called a FALSE POSITIVE.

5. FALSE NEGATIVES are harmful because you say that someone is COVID-19-free when he actually has COVID-19 so that patient will be free to spread the disease.

6. FALSE POSITIVES are harmful because you will put a patient WITHOUT COVID-19 in the hospital, possibly with REAL COVID-19 patients such that the patient can get COVID, or be isolated needlessly.

7. So how good are the tests? There are two tests we can use for COVID-19 – RT-PCR and antibody tests.

8. RT-PCR is considered the best test for diagnosing ONGOING COVID-19 infection. PCR itself is very sensitive and specific, >90% for both. HOWEVER, the TYPE of specimen and the stage of disease (how many days with symptoms) can affect how often a test is positive. So for RT-PCR, using a nasopharyngeal swab in a patient WITH disease, the probability of getting a positive test is only 63%. So you will actually MISS 37% of cases. This is why we can do a REPEAT test after 48 hours in a patient who is getting sicker of what looks like COVID, but was NEGATIVE on the first test. The DANGER of RT-PCR is a FALSE NEGATIVE and you can end up clearing someone who actually has COVID-19. This can happen in UP TO 1/3 OF PATIENTS so its not a perfect test.

9. RT-PCR is also a highly technical process that not only involves having the right machine and kits, BUT also the proper SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE like a BSL2 laboratory. Many labs and hospitals HAVE RT-PCR machines but they do not have the biosafety infrastructure.

10. Antibody tests include PRNT (Plaque reduction neutralization test, the gold standard), ELISA (enzyme linked immunosorbent assay) and lateral flow IgM/IgG. The first two are LABORATORY based assays and the last is a point of care rapid diagnostic test (POC-RDT).

11. As much as we would like to use rapid lateral flow assays (IgM/IgG) because of convenience, NONE of the lateral flow assays have used the industry standard PRNT assay as a gold standard. In other words, we have NO IDEA how good they are despite their claimed sensitivity and specificity. The biggest danger is that because it takes 5 to 10 days to make IgM antibody, the test has a high FALSE NEGATIVE rate in those who just started having symptoms. And so you will get a FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY and end up passing the virus to other people and your family members.

12. The OTHER problem with the lateral flow IgM/IgG is that there are other HUMAN CORONAVIRUSES that cause the common cold, and some antibodies against these viruses may CROSS-REACT with the test, giving you a FALSE POSITIVE, which is bad for the reasons stated.

The BOTTOM LINE is NONE OF THESE TESTS ARE PERFECT. FAR from it. Tests INFORM your response, but they still need to be INTERPRETED in the right context.

To some lay persons like myself, we think that a positive is a positive, and a negative is a negative. To clinicians and scientists, they come with HUGE caveats in management. There are times they WILL NOT believe a test result because it is NOT CONSISTENT with the patient’s clinical picture. If we let ourselves be mislead by a test result without USING OUR BRAIN, people will DIE. And this also holds for doing public health strategies and mass testing.

 

[DennisN]

Sweden's no lockdown policy is based on the recommendation of the country's leading epidemiologist. The strategy is totally opposed to what the rest of the world is doing. Let's see how this experiment turns out.

While there is no lockdown, there are many recommendations to limit contact and people are following them.

Well, I believe South Korea also has no lockdown, and they've been successful so far.

Yes. It seems we are quite compliant in Sweden, both judging from the news and from my own experience. At my place in Malmö, I noticed early that the number of people being outside was getting less. Now there are very few people going outside. And those who are out are generally more careful with keeping distance. And the fact that so few people are outside has of course had a great impact on business, e.g. restaurants.

Another thing I have personally noticed is a new kind of unusual silence. I much more seldom hear the noise of human activity like cars driving, and the usual background noise has been replaced with the sound of birds singing and chatting, which is quite pleasant.

 

[chemisttree]

Researchers from the University of Nebraska Medical Centre and the National Strategic Research Institute at the University of Nebraska took air samples from 11 rooms where 13 confirmed cases were being treated.

As well as finding genetic material from the Coronavirus on lavatories and on everyday items, 63.2 per cent of air samples taken inside the rooms and 66.7 per cent of those taken outside also showed traces.

That’s because it’s airborne. Something we have known for some time but which our “experts” still refuse to publicly admit. We don’t have enough of the “spacesuits” for all healthcare workers dealing with this so the response is to refuse to admit it’s airborne. Problem solved.

We are all going to get this thing eventually. Let’s hope the system can deal with it when we do.

 

[zoki85]

We are all going to get this thing eventually. Let’s hope the system can deal with it when we do.

I hope not...

 

[kadiot]

There's bound to be huge recession; many will be poorer than when this pandemic began; 2008 recession will look like peanuts.

 

[bhobba]

I hope not...

Your hope is justified. Managed correctly until we get a vaccine, while very hard, is not impossible. Over here in Aus they often publish a graph of those infected, those who got over it, and those who never get it. Do nothing - we all get it. Take simple measures eg hand washing etc, and the number at any time that have it is flattened and we have about 20% or so that never get it. Add in social distancing and it flattens more plus more never get it. Lockdown - better again. A vaccine - well that's pretty obvious - just a trickle get it and most never do.

If I remember correctly in China only 1% actually ever got it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[chemisttree]

How are the multistory apartment buildings in NYC different than the cruise ships being refused dockage in Florida?

The passengers of those land-bound ships can freely come and go.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-united-states-coronavirus-outbreak/

 

[atyy]

The Philippine government is planning to start the "mass testing" of COVID-19 Person Under Investigation (PUI) and Person Under Monitoring (PUM) on April 14, 2020.

1. Mass testing is not testing everyone. It is “risk-based” testing. Basically, you test people in increasing circles of risk: test the PUI, then the close contacts, then the community. It is not a shotgun approach because no country can test every single citizen for COVID-19. So we need to figure out our priorities for testing, and WHAT TEST to use. You CAN’T test 100M people, but you can test the MOST AT RISK.

2. Understand the limitations of testing. No TEST is 100% accurate. There are trade-offs. The probability that a test is positive when the disease is REALLY present is called the SENSITIVITY. The probability that a negative test actually means the disease is REALLY NOT there is called the SPECIFICITY.

3. A good sensitivity means that a test is able to detect disease MOST of the time if it is PRESENT in a patient. Having a negative test when the disease is PRESENT is called a FALSE NEGATIVE. In other words, the test failed to detect a sick person.

4. A good specificity means that a test is NEGATIVE MOST of the time if there is NO DISEASE in a patient. Having a positive test when the disease is ABSENT is called a FALSE POSITIVE.

5. FALSE NEGATIVES are harmful because you say that someone is COVID-19-free when he actually has COVID-19 so that patient will be free to spread the disease.

6. FALSE POSITIVES are harmful because you will put a patient WITHOUT COVID-19 in the hospital, possibly with REAL COVID-19 patients such that the patient can get COVID, or be isolated needlessly.

7. So how good are the tests? There are two tests we can use for COVID-19 – RT-PCR and antibody tests.

8. RT-PCR is considered the best test for diagnosing ONGOING COVID-19 infection. PCR itself is very sensitive and specific, >90% for both. HOWEVER, the TYPE of specimen and the stage of disease (how many days with symptoms) can affect how often a test is positive. So for RT-PCR, using a nasopharyngeal swab in a patient WITH disease, the probability of getting a positive test is only 63%. So you will actually MISS 37% of cases. This is why we can do a REPEAT test after 48 hours in a patient who is getting sicker of what looks like COVID, but was NEGATIVE on the first test. The DANGER of RT-PCR is a FALSE NEGATIVE and you can end up clearing someone who actually has COVID-19. This can happen in UP TO 1/3 OF PATIENTS so its not a perfect test.

9. RT-PCR is also a highly technical process that not only involves having the right machine and kits, BUT also the proper SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE like a BSL2 laboratory. Many labs and hospitals HAVE RT-PCR machines but they do not have the biosafety infrastructure.

10. Antibody tests include PRNT (Plaque reduction neutralization test, the gold standard), ELISA (enzyme linked immunosorbent assay) and lateral flow IgM/IgG. The first two are LABORATORY based assays and the last is a point of care rapid diagnostic test (POC-RDT).

11. As much as we would like to use rapid lateral flow assays (IgM/IgG) because of convenience, NONE of the lateral flow assays have used the industry standard PRNT assay as a gold standard. In other words, we have NO IDEA how good they are despite their claimed sensitivity and specificity. The biggest danger is that because it takes 5 to 10 days to make IgM antibody, the test has a high FALSE NEGATIVE rate in those who just started having symptoms. And so you will get a FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY and end up passing the virus to other people and your family members.

12. The OTHER problem with the lateral flow IgM/IgG is that there are other HUMAN CORONAVIRUSES that cause the common cold, and some antibodies against these viruses may CROSS-REACT with the test, giving you a FALSE POSITIVE, which is bad for the reasons stated.

The BOTTOM LINE is NONE OF THESE TESTS ARE PERFECT. FAR from it. Tests INFORM your response, but they still need to be INTERPRETED in the right context.

To some lay persons like myself, we think that a positive is a positive, and a negative is a negative. To clinicians and scientists, they come with HUGE caveats in management. There are times they WILL NOT believe a test result because it is NOT CONSISTENT with the patient’s clinical picture. If we let ourselves be mislead by a test result without USING OUR BRAIN, people will DIE. And this also holds for doing public health strategies and mass testing.

Where did you get this from? It looked correct when I gave it a quick read.

 

[chemisttree]

If I remember correctly in China only 1% actually ever got it.

That story is far from finished.

“Some venues that had reopened were told by the government to close yet again.”

 

[atyy]

If I remember correctly in China only 1% actually ever got it.

That's not correct. The current status is that in Wuhan, the city where the outbreak began, approximately 1% got but it was still less than 1%. In Hubei, the province in which Wuhan is located, about 0.15% have had it. In China as a whole, the percentage is about 0.01%. The percentages may be about 20% higher if you include cases that are totally asymptomatic, but that does not change the qualitative picture.

 

[wukunlin]

That story is far from finished.

“Some venues that had reopened were told by the government to close yet again.”

Looks like asymptomatic cases will be wreaking havoc
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/soc...s-coronavirus-lockdown-country-tries-get-back

 

[DennisN]

Sweden's no lockdown policy is based on the recommendation of the country's leading epidemiologist. The strategy is totally opposed to what the rest of the world is doing. Let's see how this experiment turns out.

While there is no lockdown, there are many recommendations to limit contact and people are following them.

Well, I believe South Korea also has no lockdown, and they've been successful so far.

Yes. It seems we are quite compliant in Sweden, both judging from the news and from my own experience.

I just looked at the Reuters news site and there was a brand new article about Sweden's liberal strategy which is being questioned domestically:

Sweden's liberal pandemic strategy questioned as Stockholm death toll mounts (Reuters, April 3 2020)

Some quotes:

But Sweden’s liberal approach, which aims to minimise disruption to social and economic life, is coming under fire as the epidemic spreads in the capital.

“We don’t have a choice, we have to close Stockholm right now,” Cecilia Soderberg-Naucler, Professor of Microbial Pathogenesis at the Karolinska Institute, told Reuters.

She is one of around 2,300 academics who signed an open letter to the government at the end of last month calling for tougher measures to protect the healthcare system.

“We must establish control over the situation, we cannot head into a situation where we get complete chaos. No one has tried this route, so why should we test it first in Sweden, without informed consent?” she said.

...

The public face of Sweden’s pandemic fight, Health Agency Chief Epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, only months ago a little known civil servant but now rivalling the prime minister for publicity, has questioned how effectively lockdowns can be enforced over time.

“It is important to have a policy that can be sustained over a longer period, meaning staying home if you are sick, which is our message,” said Tegnell, who has received both threats and fan mail over the country’s handling of the crisis.

“Locking people up at home won’t work in the longer term,” he said. “Sooner or later people are going to go out anyway.”

 

[DrClaude]

I just looked at the Reuters news site and there was a brand new article about Sweden's liberal strategy which is being questioned domestically:

Sweden's liberal pandemic strategy questioned as Stockholm death toll mounts (Reuters, April 3 2020)

I wouldn't be surprised if Stockholm was put under lockdown in the coming days. Maybe even Malmö and Göteborg, looking at the current map of known cases:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/202...eak_Cases_in_Sweden_by_Number_with_Legend.svg

I just hope the government doesn't go for a one-size-fits-all solution.

 

[kadiot]

Where did you get this from? It looked correct when I gave it a quick read.

Working draft from the inter-agency task force on emerging infectious diseases in the Philippines. I'll post here the final and official paper once it's done,

 

[peanut]

Saw this University of Cambridge published diagram and eventually found the original paper.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.12055.pd...UYSdIpSgzc2V9bkYueivMv5Q9h7G2Nm9Y2VVCEMNcn_5E

 

[DrClaude]

There is a very interesting trend plotter: https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/

More explanation can be found in this video:

 

[russ_watters]

Researchers from the University of Nebraska Medical Centre and the National Strategic Research Institute at the University of Nebraska took air samples from 11 rooms where 13 confirmed cases were being treated.

As well as finding genetic material from the Coronavirus on lavatories and on everyday items, 63.2 per cent of air samples taken inside the rooms and 66.7 per cent of those taken outside also showed traces.

My take on this and the broader issue...

There are three layers to the "airborne" description:
1. Transmission by suspension in water droplets from coughing or aggressive singing is confirmed.
2. True "airborne transmission" is what happens after those droplets dry-out and the virus particles remain suspended in the air because they are small. This isn't confirmed.
3. The quote above is referring to likely inert virus debris being detected. That's an obvious thing that doesn't imply anything about airborne transmission.

From a policy perspective, we've been receiving conflicting guidance on wearing masks. This is based in part on changing or differing risk/risk analysis and in part on logistics: there aren't enough masks (of any type) to go around. Framing the risk, I see three categories:
1. People who are sick need to wear masks to reduce the emission of virus-carrying droplets of saliva.
2. Not everyone who is sick knows it. Hence, potentially anyone could be sick and everyone should wear masks.
3. The value of wearing a mask if you are not sick is debatable, but it's not zero. Hence, again, everyone should wear masks.

Initial guidance was based on #1. Now people are changing to #2 and #3. But the logistic issue is still a problem.

So my personal opinion - not a doctor or policymaker - is that if you want a wear a mask, go ahead. But only if you aren't taking one from a first-responder/caregiver/sick person. I literally just found a new-in-package N95 mask on a shelf in my closet by my attic access. I have several masks of various types I use if I'm doing something dusty like working in my attic, and this happens to have gone unused. I'll keep it in the package for now.

 

[kith]

History may judge South Korea's reaction "right" and everyone else's "wrong", but when an awful lot of people independently come to the "wrong" conclusion, I think you have to accept that reality at face value: under most systems of logic, political philosophy, risk tolerance, institutional inertia, etc. the data did not support an aggressive response.

In his books "The Black Swan" and "Antifragile", Nassim Nicholas Taleb argues that the usual measures of risk are increasingly inadequate in the modern world. They deal only with a certain class of risks but not with events like the financial crisis in 2008 or the current Coronavirus crisis which are arguably much more influencial. He suggests a different approach to risk management based on identifying a specific class of big risks ("systemic" and "fat-tailed") and being more cautious towards them. In line with this, he co-authored a call to action regarding the current crisis in late January. I find his line of thinking quite interesting.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Saw this University of Cambridge published diagram and eventually found the original paper.

Their forecast doesn't seem to match the data.