Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Maybe, I am not seeing any change in behaviors, or limitations, around here.  If anything, fewer people are wearing masks.

And if folks were scared, they should start being less scared now, and the numbers should climb back.  I don't expect that.

I do.  I absolutely do.

I find myself logically being in the same space here as utee. Which quite frankly is application of Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation for a reduction in cases is that peoples' behavior, in the aggregate, has shifted just enough to reduce the spread.

I think that is consistent with what we're seeing on college campuses right now as well. If we had latent immunity and it wasn't behavior, there would be no explanation why those spikes occur every time you bring a bunch of young people together. Because if it's "constant area under the curve", then their poor choices when getting onto campus shouldn't cause spikes, as the transmission should have cut down already.

The "constant area under the curve" hypothesis has emotional allure to it, but there's a part of me that considers it more wishful thinking than anything else. And the reason for that is that I can't find a good enough reason for "why". Unless the number of asymptomatic cases is WILDLY higher than we think, I don't think we're looking at a herd immunity scenario. 

I've seen [and posted a week or two ago] that there may be something I wouldn't call latent "immunity" in the population, because it doesn't seem like it would stop transmission. That's the idea that people who have a stronger immune reaction to other coronavirus variants (common colds, etc) may simply have a quicker and more complete immune response to this virus such that it explains the high degree of asymptomatic infected. However, if that really meant that we've had a lot more people than previously believed who have had this virus, it should have shown up in testing and antibody testing, and I haven't seen much evidence of that. 

The problem is that it's REALLY hard to quantify "changed aggregate behavior". I don't have any way to look at Sweden, for example, and truly measure what proportion of people are still WFH, still social distancing, still wearing masks. I don't know if people are going out more or less than they were 2 months ago. I don't know if people are seeing family/friends more or less than 2 months ago. So we look at Sweden, with their less-restrictive measures, and ask "why" their numbers aren't spiking...

I don't know what is going to happen when kids all start going back to school either. I fear huge spikes. But I hope I'm wrong.

I find myself logically being in the same space here as utee. Which quite frankly is application of Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation for a reduction in cases is that peoples' behavior, in the aggregate, has shifted just enough to reduce the spread.

I think that is consistent with what we're seeing on college campuses right now as well. If we had latent immunity and it wasn't behavior, there would be no explanation why those spikes occur every time you bring a bunch of young people together. Because if it's "constant area under the curve", then their poor choices when getting onto campus shouldn't cause spikes, as the transmission should have cut down already.

The "constant area under the curve" hypothesis has emotional allure to it, but there's a part of me that considers it more wishful thinking than anything else. And the reason for that is that I can't find a good enough reason for "why". Unless the number of asymptomatic cases is WILDLY higher than we think, I don't think we're looking at a herd immunity scenario.

I've seen [and posted a week or two ago] that there may be something I wouldn't call latent "immunity" in the population, because it doesn't seem like it would stop transmission. That's the idea that people who have a stronger immune reaction to other coronavirus variants (common colds, etc) may simply have a quicker and more complete immune response to this virus such that it explains the high degree of asymptomatic infected. However, if that really meant that we've had a lot more people than previously believed who have had this virus, it should have shown up in testing and antibody testing, and I haven't seen much evidence of that.

The problem is that it's REALLY hard to quantify "changed aggregate behavior". I don't have any way to look at Sweden, for example, and truly measure what proportion of people are still WFH, still social distancing, still wearing masks. I don't know if people are going out more or less than they were 2 months ago. I don't know if people are seeing family/friends more or less than 2 months ago. So we look at Sweden, with their less-restrictive measures, and ask "why" their numbers aren't spiking...

I don't know what is going to happen when kids all start going back to school either. I fear huge spikes. But I hope I'm wrong.

Overall I agree.

But I don't see an inconsistency between the "area under the curve" explanation, and an eventual move toward herd immunity, if you're trying to point out a conflict there?

The "Total area under the curve explanation" actually fits what we're seeing.  Every time we open up too much-- particularly shared indoor spaces in relatively close confines-- the cases start to increase.  In the US, the places like NY that have "beat" it and remain low, still haven't opened up all of those shared interior spaces.  Same thing was true in Europe, until Italy and Spain DID open the bars, and then like clockwork, a few weeks later, cases began to rise.

That's all part of the "area under the curve."  It's the idea that the virus is already out there, and will inevitably spread absent MAJOR behavioral modifications from normal.  Actions of closing bars and wearing masks and avoiding large crowded gatherings only push the peaks out, delay them, but they don't eliminate them.


The only two things that can eliminate the recurring spikes (absent continued major behavioral modifications), are reaching herd immunity naturally, or implementing an effective virus.  Or, of course, some combination of those two things.

What if "our" latent resistance is due to some corona exposure in 1995?

That's a major what if, and I hear what you're saying.  I have wondered if college kids behaved differently when they were at home.  They probably had a tighter circle of exposures at home.

So, we should expect an upsurge in new cases in about two weeks?

As far as resistance based on previous corona, I don't think it's resistance to INFECTION, I think it's resistance to symptoms. 

Which means if we're aggressively testing and contact tracing, my thought is that positivity rates would be higher. I would also think it would have shown up in the antibody testing... Although due to antibodies waning over time, I could make an argument that there is a real reason it was missed. Perhaps those people had lower antibodies levels to start and their levels waned below detectability faster. 

But there's still a part of me that thinks none of the numbers we've seen are large enough to explain that we're getting closer to some sort of herd immunity level, and *THAT* is why case numbers spike then decline. 

And yes, I do believe college kids behaved differently. Not that they were necessarily "safe" at home, but regularly hanging out with your close circle of friends is a LOT different than hanging out with 100 people you don't know at a crowded college bar/nightclub, or a college house party or fraternity party. 

Regarding "in two weeks" to which are you referring? Kids going back to school, or something related to the college discussion? I'm not sure what you're asking. 

Overall I agree.

But I don't see an inconsistency between the "area under the curve" explanation, and an eventual move toward herd immunity, if you're trying to point out a conflict there?

The "Total area under the curve explanation" actually fits what we're seeing.  Every time we open up too much-- particularly shared indoor spaces in relatively close confines-- the cases start to increase.  In the US, the places like NY that have "beat" it and remain low, still haven't opened up all of those shared interior spaces.  Same thing was true in Europe, until Italy and Spain DID open the bars, and then like clockwork, a few weeks later, cases began to rise.

That's all part of the "area under the curve."  It's the idea that the virus is already out there, and will inevitably spread absent MAJOR behavioral modifications from normal.  Actions of closing bars and wearing masks and avoiding large crowded gatherings only push the peaks out, delay them, but they don't eliminate them.

The only two things that can eliminate the recurring spikes (absent continued major behavioral modifications), are reaching herd immunity naturally, or implementing an effective virus.  Or, of course, some combination of those two things.

Cincy will have to say whether what I'm about to say was interpreting his "area under the curve" argument correctly... It has to do with why he continually brings up Sweden, and continually brings up GA cases dropping when he's not seeing any changes to gov't restrictions and perhaps is anecdotally seeing LESS responsible behavior re: dining/masks than he saw a few weeks ago.

Essentially I take his "area under the curve" argument that the spikes we've had in the places we've had are effectively the upper limit, and we were going to hit those spikes whenever restrictions were eased. But that looking at someplace like Sweden, for example, the spike is over and there won't be another. They experienced the virus, it hit hard, and now their numbers are waning because whatever level of latent immunity exists is now protecting people more than their behavior or gov't restriction.

It sounds to me like his argument is that Sweden has already filled up its area under the curve, and there won't be more, regardless of whether they reopen or not. 

My take [and it sounds like yours] on the area under the curve is that the total area under the curve is MUCH larger than what we've experienced. If we were going to fully reopen everything right now, and people actually behaved as if we'd beaten this virus, the case and then death tolls would be staggering. 

Cincy--if I'm completely mischaracterizing you, let me know...

Should we expect an uptick in 2-3 weeks because of school,university openings?

Should we expect an uptick in 2-3 weeks because of school,university openings?

I do expect an uptick when kids go back to school. 

Not necessarily so much from colleges, because I think that will be much more localized in college towns where students are on campus. While you may see clusters which increase the numbers at colleges, I think that doesn't affect the rest of us nearly as much. 

However, I'm really worried that this "return to school" experiment, whenever it starts, will not last long. Even with everything the schools are doing, even with some parents opting for distance learning, etc. We'll have to see though. I could be wrong.

I was just chatting with two folks at the pool, one from Chicago and one from Phoenix.  the fellow from Chicago never got sick, but people in his office did and he tests very positive for antibodies.  He doesn't even remember being slightly ill.  

I don't know what that means, just a random "stat".  I'd like to "know" what is likely to happen.  Will this continue to abate or kick back up again?

It seems a lot of Europe is kicking back up again.  Sweden is not (yet).  The wife has a close friend there who tells me they are all being pretty sensible at least where she lives.  It would be NICE if "being sensible" is all we need to do.