The editors of the Washington Post warn about the potential for a second wave of COVID-19 cases:
A devastating second wave is possible — but can be averted.
All available evidence points in one direction — that people and governments should be as relentless as the virus. Wear masks; wash hands; avoid crowded, confined spaces; and set up adequate testing and contact tracing.
Is that actually true? Or does the preponderance of the evidence suggest that masks are primarily useful in health care environments or other conditions of very intimate contact for long period of time (like the home—where there is little prospect of their being used)? Avoiding crowded, confined spaces seems like good general advice but, in the absence of people with noticeable signs of the virus, does the actual evidence at hand tell us that we can stop the spread of the virus by avoiding them? And what’s “adequate testing”? The U. S. has already tested 30 times the number of people that Japan has relative to our population and in Japan “contact tracing” is overwhelmingly a local matter, not the national effort the editors of the WaPo seem to feel is vital to our effort:
For states and cities — delegated the task by an irresponsible president who turned his back on it — the key is building a robust testing, contact tracing and isolating regimen as soon as possible.
And how do the editors explain the situation in the global south where other than Brazil there do not seem to have been any major outbreaks?
At this point I can’t distinguish between rationalizations of the lockdowns and other measures that have been tried and what’s actually working. If the lockdowns were effective shouldn’t California’s outbreak, still actually quite mild, have stopped the virus dead in its tracks? Non-compliance as an explanation for the limited effectiveness of the measures put in place there sounds terribly circular to me or at least a “no true Scotsman” argument.
I think we can stipulate that if each person in the entire world were confined to a hermetically-sealed room alone the virus would die out but can we not also stipulate that was never going to happen? And that beyond that there are just too many moving parts with too little real knowledge to make confident assertions of the correct policy response?
The part about the global south except Brazil being spared is sadly not the case.
Most of Latin America, (Mexico, Chile, Peru, Mexico), South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh), Saudi Arabia, Russia, South Africa, Iran, Indonesia are having serious outbreaks which are still growing in severity.
The only part of the Global South that may escape serious trouble is probably sub-Sahara Africa ex-South Africa.
I have been pointed out for 2 months now that we never adopted a popular (and I believe effective) measure in East Asia; out of home isolation.
If WaPo followed the news, they know test/trace is not the full answer; look at Singapore.
I guess it depends on your standard for a “major outbreak”. Limiting to countries south of the equator here are some examples from each continent:
That’s not cherry-picking. I just sampled some good-sized countries below the equator. Even Chile is a fraction of the severity of the U. S. or Spain. What these countries have in common is that they’re south of the equator. IMO they’re actually pretty representative. I guess you could complain that record-keeping is bad.
I’m struggling to explain what is happening using a “man from Mars” standard. IMO using such a standard what is being done is less important than where the countries are and who lives there. That’s the connecting thread between this post and the blood type post.
It is the trend that matters; the US hit its plateau about 2 months ago, Chile, Argentina, South Africa have not hit their peaks. In 2 months and those numbers maybe comparable to where the US is now.
Botswana is sub-sahara Africa, and I have not thought the anti-podes as part of the “Global South” (I thought it was an alternative phrase for the “3rd world”).
Only if we can assume that weather and/or the angle of the sun are factors in the spread of the virus. If they aren’t, the only factors could be interconnectedness to the global economy and dumb luck.
Mexico is north of the border, but it is accelerating and not looking good. Also, I am not so sure about the quality of reporting in most places south of the US. I would trust Australia, New Zealand maybe one or two others.
Steve
Mexico’s experience fully supports what I’ve been saying for the last several months. The biggest risks are in the areas where the most people cross over from the U. S. to Mexico. The most effective thing we might have done to spare Mexico the brunt of harm from SARS-CoV-2 would have been to close the border tightly.
If they build a wall, Trump will pay for it. (Looks like most deaths are down towards Mexico City.)
Steve
One under-discussed aspect of the increase in infections is it is inversely correlated with latitude (i.e. the further South go, the higher the surge).
You have to wonder if the current weather in the South is too hot — and people are spending more time indoors (which is a known risk factor).
? As the table above documents, that isn’t strictly true. South Africa stretches from 22°S to 35°S. Argentina extends from about 18°S to 55°S and has a very low prevalence and mortality. There isn’t much human habitation south of that. New Zealand is around 40°S.
As the southern summer lengthens we will have an opportunity of testing your hypothesis.
Oops. The last comment was an observation about the US only; not internationally.