I hope everyone here understands what this virus is going to like a month from now.

[shockey80]

The doctors have been making it very clear. One doctor said it best. We are going to get hit by tsunami. After the first tsunami there will be another one to follow, perhaps in the fall.

[defacto7]

1. But it will not be weather related. That has been

established already. It's hard for people to get over the fact that this is not the flu. If there is a second wave it could be anytime and not because of the season.

[FBaggins]

4. That has in no sense "been established"

It's fair to say that it has not been definitively established that warmer and more humid weather will slow the spread of the virus... but that is where the early research is pointing. It certainly can't be said to have "been established" at this point that weather will not have an impact.

From today's Washington Post

The novel coronavirus pandemic that has killed thousands, sickened more than 350,000 and sent major economies into a tailspin may be slowed by the upcoming changing of the seasons, several preliminary studies suggest. However, the research on how the novel coronavirus behaves in various temperature and humidity levels is only just getting underway.

Multiple early studies provide evidence of statistical ties between temperature and humidity ranges and the geographic regions where this virus has thrived. While none of these studies has been peer-reviewed, they all point to the same general possibility: The pandemic could ease in parts of North America and Europe during the summer months, although it could then come roaring back in the fall.

Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and a visible figure on the White House coronavirus task force, said at a Wednesday press briefing that a seasonal cycle to the pandemic is possible, perhaps even likely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/03/24/warm-humid-weather-coronavirus/

[defacto7]

7. How about this from the World Health Organization.

Myths

The CDC is not my goto for information nor is the media. There are other science sources that are more detailed.

Hope is the driving message from our gov and its CDC.

[FBaggins]

10. That doesn't help the position even a little

Nobody is claiming that the virus could entirely disappear in warmer weather (which is all that WHO's "myth-busting" rebuts.)

Note that people still catch the flu during the summer... it's just at a much lower rate.

[defacto7]

12. That's not the fact. The subject was been put away

some time ago. The resurgence of the seasonal myth is part of the US adminitration propaganda to bolster market forces kind of like the Easter surprise. It won't be long until we find out. I honestly hope you're right, but if it's not one needs to decide if it's more dangerous to think things will be better once the northern hemisphere warms a bit. The normal temps during summer and winter are optimal for this virus' propagation. The only evidence of temperature effect is found on surfaces above 86F. The average viability decreased from 6-9 days to 3-6 days on a hard surface. The difference has no measurable effect on public infection due to the wide variance of surfaces and in the frequency of human contact.

[FBaggins]

15. Sorry... it has in no sense "been put away"

All you've shown is a (correct) position that it would be wrong to believe that you can't catch the virus in hot/humid weather.

The problem is that this isn't the "seasonal myth".

The normal temps during summer and winter are optimal for this virus' propagation.

That has not been established. Once again, all you've provided is a claim that the virus can still be transmitted in hot weather. That isn't at all the same thing as showing that summer temperatures are optimal for the virus' spread. Seasonality only requires that there be a not-insignificant difference.

The only evidence of temperature effect is found on surfaces above 86F.

The only evidence? Did you miss...

Multiple early studies provide evidence of statistical ties between temperature and humidity ranges and the geographic regions where this virus has thrived.

???

[defacto7]

20. I like Wapo. Yes I did read the wapo comment.

Unfortunately I take all media, CDC and even Fauci with a grain. But if you want to quote those sources, well good luck. We'll see.

[FBaggins]

21. The article contained links to the actual studies

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.18.20036731v1.full.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3550308

More importantly... note that you're the one making definitive claims. That it has been established that there will NOT be a seasonal impact on the spread of the virus and that possibilities to the contrary were "put away" long ago. You've provided zero evidence for such a claim.

As I said in my original reply, it would be true to claim that a seasonal impact has in no way been established... but it's wrong to claim that the possibility of such a seasonal pattern has been shown to be false.

[defacto7]

23. I don't think you read those papers.

First paragraph in the second link:

Background: A significant number of infectious diseases display seasonal patterns in their incidence, including human coronaviruses. Betacoronaviruses such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV are not thought to be seasonal.

In that paper they are trying to predict the spread based on temp, humidity and latitude. They are not concluding anything. It is a study in effect.

The first link is a pdf file so I have to paraphrase:

They begin with stating they they think seasonal variations could effect the incidence of C-19... ...higher average temps were stronly associated with lower covid incidence above 1 degree C and higher.

But wait.....

However, temp explained a relatively modest amount of the total variation in C-19 incidents. They suggest a stringent effort in Europe and other climates. [because of the modest variation]. In other words... stay the course the difference makes no difference.

I will conceed this. I should not be using such definitive words and phrases such as, put away or established. Ok, that's fair. What I wanted to get across is that health organizations have emphisized not to expect seasonal drop as is the case for the flu or colds. In one way or directly both of these papers back that up. They are testing the premise as good science should.

[FBaggins]

25. Actually... I did. Try again?

You bolded the portion that dealt with MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV (neither of which is the virus in question) while ignoring the part immediately preceding that (which says that human coronaviruses often DO display seasonal patterns)??

Then skipped right over their early interpretation of the data?

The distribution of significant community outbreaks along restricted latitude, temperature, and humidity are consistent with the behavior of a seasonal respiratory virus.

Yes... it's early in the study (it was just published a few days ago and hasn't been peer-reviewed yet)... but it's entirely consistent with the way the Post described the current state

they all point to the same general possibility: The pandemic could ease in parts of North America and Europe during the summer months, although it could then come roaring back in the fall

That's actually the WHO's position as well. That it could turn out to be seasonal but that we shouldn't count on it. And (as you now recognize) the opposite of saying that it has been established that weather will not play a role.

[defacto7]

33. You seem to be omitting to prove a point.

Why did you omit the word betacoronavirus? Do you know what a betacoronavirus is? SARS-CoV-2 is a betacoronavirus like SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. The study hypothesis just assumes the reader knows what it is. Betacoronavirus

Just be open to what it says. Use logic. It's all there. You don't have to prove anything to anyone.

I'm out, this is getting just a tad absurd. Say what you will and we'll have to let the audience discern for themselves.

Be well and survive.

[FBaggins]

35. Not at all... but you're grasping at straws

Why did you omit the word betacoronavirus

I didn't "omit" anything. I focused on the part that you were actively ignoring. In this post, that appears to include ignoring "not thought to be seasonal" and inferring instead "are not seasonal".

The study hypothesis just assumes the reader knows what it is

I think it's more likely that the authors assume that their readers know that neither SARS nor MERS has hit enough people globally to actually determine whether either is at all seasonal. While you exercised your confirmation bias to just assume that you had been right all along... and interpreted the text with that in mind.

Just be open to what it says. Use logic. It's all there.

How ironic.

I think I'll just limit my response to pointing out that the lead authors of that study were just published in the Washington Post with an opinion piece discussing their work. I think the "discerning audience" here can judge for themselves whether the authors of the piece are "open" to what their report actually says. You have interpreted it as supporting your position that there is no evidence of seasonality... while I'd say I'm the one actually open to what they're saying. (emphasis mine)

Covid-19 is probably seasonal, but that’s no reason to relax

The pattern is scary, but familiar. Seasonal respiratory viruses, most infamously influenza, can act in the same explosive fashion. In temperate areas, every fall and winter, as the weather cools and humidity drops, influenza ferociously takes hold and retains a strong grip until spring. There are four coronaviruses — viruses that are common in humans, usually causing moderate respiratory illnesses — that are also seasonal.

...

Our research determined that all the major affected areas in January through early March were in the Northern Hemisphere between 30 and 50 degrees north latitude. And the areas had nearly identical temperatures of 41 to 52 degrees Fahrenheit and low humidity in the weeks before they recorded their first covid-19 death.

Those conditions are similar to the laboratory conditions that maximize survival for seasonal respiratory viruses and are most conducive for transmission. Cooler temperatures are known to increase the survival of respiratory viruses on surfaces, help stabilize (along with low humidity) the aerosol floating in air, and even increase viral replication in some instances.

The notion that the virus causing covid-19 will behave as a seasonal respiratory virus is a controversial one, because a whole season’s worth of data isn’t available yet, and because it risks stirring false hope that might inspire shortsighted policymaking. Even though we believe that covid-19 is behaving as a seasonal respiratory virus, that view comes with an enormous caveat: The study of past pandemics, from the whooping cough in 1400s Persia to the 2009 H1N1 virus in the United States, shows that new infections that eventually are regarded as seasonal afflictions can behave erratically (due to a lack of widespread immunity) until they settle into their characteristic pattern.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/27/covid-19-is-probably-seasonal-thats-no-reason-relax/

Maybe you should call them up and ask them if they know what a betacoronavirus is?

[Brainfodder]

18. Sorry, Orange Blowfeld has been recorded claiming EXACTLY that first part!

Please don't be ignorant to the fact a bunch of no nothings follow his words, too!

[defacto7]

24. Read it again. That's not what it says.

[DeminPennswoods]

16. It's summer in the southern hemisphere now, heading

into fall. The epidemiologists are watching to see if cases increase there and decrease in the northern hemisphere as the weather warms.

[MattBaggins]

34. One big factor people forget when talking about this

The earth is titled at 23.5 degrees. What is going to happen in South America in a few months? If they can't contain it, and no vaccine is found, we will be screwed in the Fall.

[FBaggins]

36. This is essentially what Fauci was saying yesterday nt

[HarlanPepper]

2. Can you tell us more about it?

[Sherman A1]

3. Anyone who believes this will be over prior to a vaccine being widely available

is simply whistling past the graveyard. We have probably 2 years of trouble ahead.

[FBaggins]

5. It all depends on what you consider "over"

IMHO - it's "over" once the threat of exceeding hospital capacity to care for the infected has passed. That could come from a vaccine (next year)... but it could also come from effective treatments, changes in the rate of spread (from weather or behavior), or when a large enough proportion of the population has come out the other side.

Many millions of people would still have an infection in their future... but it would still be "over" in terms of impact on society as a whole.

[Sherman A1]

11. My version of "over" is a vaccine

I really don't believe anything short of that qualifies.

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. Coronaviridae mutate rapidly

A vaccine isn't likely to give lasting protection.

This shit is going to be with us for a long while, even with a vaccine.

[FBaggins]

28. That's just the opposite of what it being reported for the current virus

Scientists say the coronavirus is not mutating quickly and might respond to a single vaccine

Scientists studying the novel coronavirus’s genetic code say it does not appear to be mutating quickly, suggesting any vaccine developed for it will likely remain effective in the long term.

Peter Thielen, a molecular geneticist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, told The Washington Post that there are only about four to 10 genetic differences between the strains infecting people in the U.S. and the virus that emerged in Wuhan, China.

“That’s a relatively small number of mutations for having passed through a large number of people,” he told the newspaper. “At this point the mutation rate of the virus would suggest that the vaccine developed for SARS-CoV-2 would be a single vaccine, rather than a new vaccine every year like the flu vaccine.”

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/489323-scientists-say-the-coronavirus-is-not-mutating-and-might-respond-to-a

[sarisataka]

6. Will it like ice cream,

Long evening walks and watching romantic movies?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Truly

nobody knows what things might be like. They could be better or worse, depending on a multitude of factors and variables that virtually nobody can predict. This is unfolding like a movie none of us have never seen and don't know how it will end.

[DeminPennswoods]

17. Chris Hayes had an interesting graph on last night

It was data from a company that tracks employee temperatures. It showed what looks like a correlation between people with fevers and when the measures to isolate/distance each other occurred. There may not be a connection, but it was interesting to see.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. As Spock might say

"Fascinating"

[LAS14]

9. Remember how long ago Mardi Gras was?

Louisiana is just now making headlines. They trace its start to Mardi Gras.

[malaise]

13. Add a hurricane or two to the mix between July and October

You ain't see nuthin' yet.

[shockey80]

14. So many things can go wrong because we don't have a president.

I don't see how some companies can survive long term. Airlines are a good example, they will not get back to normal until there is a vaccine. How can they stay in business until then?

[BamaRefugee]

32. Airlines made us weak! When "America was great" it took 4 days to go from coast to coast on a train,

so let's return to those days and become ALL-AMERICAN HE-MEN like our grandaddies were!

[BamaRefugee]

27. And a big earthquake in Cali to make things even more, umm, *interesting*

[Adsos Letter]

29. Don't even speak of it.

It is a thought that occurs to me frequently (I live in the Bay Area). How would we handle things if we had another quake like the 1906 quake? It’s frightening to even think about.

[BamaRefugee]

31. I live in L.A. and after the Northridge quake I wound up with 6 newly homeless friends living in my

apartment!

[spanone]

30. JUST IN TIME FOR EASTER!!!!!!