News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ilamont on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @03:23PM (#22549438)
The outbreak attributed to a Biogen meeting in Boston had just 175 participants. 70 out of 92 confirmed cases in Massachusetts are now connected to that meeting: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/03/11/biogen-cor...

I believe 8 have been hospitalized.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by asdfman123 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:02PM (#22550560)
People who complain about the Rodeo being in cancelled in Houston should read that first, but the problem is precisely that they aren't reading things like that and complaining on social media as if their perspective were valid.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hef19898 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:09PM (#22551349)
That argument goes both ways, so. Totally agree on the general point.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by jessaustin on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:51PM (#22552064)
Complaints on social media are never really "the problem".
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by foota on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @03:58PM (#22549848)
Part of me wonders: if this happened from one event, just how terrible must the odds be that the virus isn't spreading similarly under our noses from contacts that haven't been identified?
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by paulhodge on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:52PM (#22552065)
This article is really good at predicting those "dark" cases: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop...

If we assume that the growth chart is similar everywhere, then with our 1,000 confirmed cases in the US, we probably have around 30,000 unconfirmed dark cases.

Also a really crazy fact is that South Korea did a good job of containing 30 out of 31 of their initial cases in the early days. But then the 31st was responsible for thousands of infections.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by dilyevsky on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:41PM (#22552352)
Not that crazy when you consider that every novel disease (or maybe even life itself) started with just one or a few individuals.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by scarmig on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:54PM (#22552426)
What's interesting is that it is containable: Taiwan and Singapore both have managed to avoid sustained community transmission, and they did this by rigorous contact tracing and travel regulation. And South Korea acted similarly! But one bad case got through (and the cult responsible is uniquely problematic), and that's costing South Korea many lives and billions of USD.

The learning here shouldn't be that mass coronavirus death is inevitable, but that good policy that takes it seriously can contain it and make it manageable.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by bamboozled on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @11:34PM (#22553452)
Why call it a “dark case” ?

How about an asymptomatic case ?

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by paulhodge on Thursday March 12, 2020 @01:02AM (#22553943)
Was thinking like dark matter, you can't measure it directly, but you can infer its size from other signals.

Also it's not just asymptomatic cases, it's also symptomatic but not tested. Some people ignore it since it can present as a minor cold. Some people want a test but can't get one.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by bamboozled on Thursday March 12, 2020 @08:04PM (#22563391)
Yeah idk, just sounds a bit dramatic / alarmist.

The media would love this term. Maybe you should try patent it.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by adventured on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:04PM (#22552138)
Very likely true re dark cases. China had at least a million positive cases of the virus.

China has 23 times the population of Italy, but only saw eight times the cases (eventually that will narrow even further). It's obviously absurd, especially given China moved slow to stop the spread in the early going. Every day that goes by we're getting confirmation that China lied aggressively about how extremely infectious the virus is, how easily it is spread, how large of a population it could infect and how quickly. That information would have helped the world a lot.

Italy's mortality rate is extreme right now, at 6.6%. Most likely they have a lot more cases than have tested positive thus far, probably at least two to three times as many are infected vs the official tally. I expect this will be a common theme almost everywhere, including in the US.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by scarmig on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:57PM (#22552437)
Outside of Hubei, China's done extensive community testing of everyone who presents symptoms that would be associated with coronavirus. The vast majority are negative. This isn't consistent with the hypothesis that there are millions of undiagnosed cases.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by asdfman123 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:02PM (#22550566)
It's almost certainly happening.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by jjeaff on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:03PM (#22549882)
That is what I have been wondering. My family all had what we thought was the flu a few weeks ago despite having gotten the flu vaccine.

I realize the flu vaccine is not always effective, but it seems possible to me that we and many others have contracted it and already recovered.

Since testing is very rare, there would be no way of knowing until someone gets a severe enough case to go to the hospital and then qualify for testing.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by chandraonline on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:16PM (#22550000)
Anecdata but I also saw a bunch of adults with school going children becoming sick with flu like symptoms in December & January and recovering, incidentally the kids were either mildly sick or totally fine. In hindsight I also drew the same conclusion. Perhaps covid-19 was making the rounds in the US even before we officially declared it was here.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:30PM (#22550135)
There's lots of other viruses making the rounds in winter. This timeline doesn't add up; December is way too early for COVID-19 anywhere except Wuhan. It was something else.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by HelloNurse on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:19PM (#22550798)
It's hard to tell without testing patients, of course. But with unrestricted intercontinental flights spreading diseases requires bad luck, not time: in December (or earlier) the streets of Wuhan and any city in the world were only one cough in the street apart.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by foota on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:42PM (#22551087)
It's still doubtful though, since there was a small number of people infected, the odds of them in particular traveling while contagious are low, especially when you consider that the first people infected may have limited travel because of demographics.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:58PM (#22551245)
There's at least a 99.99% certainty here it wasn't COVID-19, likely a lot more nines. It just doesn't add up.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:14PM (#22551387)
For December time frame, this is the correct interpretation. We would already see a suspicious spike in 1st-2nd week Jan pneumonia death rates if COVID-19 were spreading in the US in December. Average time to death for those who do die is I believe 17 days from onset of symptoms.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:21PM (#22551446)
Yeah, there's just no way there was a huge COVID-19 cluster here in the US in December, and then everyone just got better and it never turned identifiable. We know how insanely contagious this disease is. It couldn't have been circulating for months in a given area without sending enough people to the hospital/morgue to draw scrutiny.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by paulmd on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:10PM (#22551360)
> Perhaps covid-19 was making the rounds in the US even before we officially declared it was here.

Yes, highly possible, one reearcher believes it was circulating in Washington state since at least middle of January. The term of art is "cryptic transmission".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-may-have-s...

Part of the problem is that the CDC's definitions were so strict at the time that you could not be tested unless you had personally traveled to China, so all cases of domestic transmission were being discounted at that time.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by dmix on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:04PM (#22551755)
> Part of the problem is that the CDC's definitions were so strict at the time

Do you think this problem will be rectified in future epidemics? Or is this just the nature of testing and/or the healthcare bureaucracy at the national/international level?

The amount of times the article mentions Biogen employees getting denied testing, days before the rest of the company would find out they had reached 70, really bothers me.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by paulmd on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @09:11PM (#22552493)
> Do you think this problem will be rectified in future epidemics? Or is this just the nature of testing and/or the healthcare bureaucracy at the national/international level?

I think this is such a broad question with so many factors it's not really possible to answer.

I think the fact that it was a flu-like disease contributed to an overall lax attitude towards this. If it had been Ebola, health authorities would have clamped down hard and fast.

I think the fact that it started in China was a contributing factor. China didn't want to look like a source of disease, China didn't want its reputation on the international stage damaged by criticism from CDC and WHO and so those authorities were possibly more mute than normal. And there is another potential dimension here if this ends up being a military weapon that accidentally escaped from Wuhan BSL-4 containment. That may be a reason they came down on those researchers who sounded the alarm - those researchers worked at that BSL-4 facility and may have been discussing something that was classified and the chinese government didn't want discussed. This also may have been one dimension behind the Trump administration classifying the early briefings (although more generally I think they just didn't want to spook the market).

Finally, it's also impossible to separate the response from the administration. The Trump administration cut the budget for the epidemic response teams that would have been our first defense against this, two years ago. And their overall administration has been petty at best and malicious at worst. Just like how he went after the NWS officials who corrected his (completely wrong) forecast predictions for the hurricane landfall, there has been a reluctance to countermand him or correct him even when he's doing something completely wrong lest he come back at CDC or WHO and further sabotage the response in revenge. He spent the first two months of this year arguing that it was a hoax being cooked up by the deep state CDC to damage the economy and hurt his re-election chances. Even the Bush administration would have been far more competent at responding to this, Trump's leadership is exceptionally bad. You can say that's tribalism but the reason people are so all-in on that is because it's true, the Trump administration's petty, childish behavior has significantly damaged the US response to this crisis, both actively and passively.

Most other crises eventually fade from the news. Puerto Rico still isn't rebuilt but nobody cares anymore. etc etc. He hoped it would be a tempest in a teapot that blew over and it didn't. He's reluctantly come to terms with that in the last week.

If this whole question was a trap to make me say something downvotable, oh well, so be it, but it's all factually true and that's my honest opinion.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by paulmd on Thursday March 12, 2020 @04:06AM (#22554730)
If you'd like further confirmation:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/anthony-fauci-donald...

> According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, nearly everything the president has said about the coronavirus is wrong.

/shrug

Why do you think that would happen? Why would the president just contradict his subject experts with literally multiple decades of experience in this field? Why would he literally impede the state agencies from doing the testing necessary to monitor and oversee the status of the disease?

Why would he say the hurricane is going to curve into an entirely different state from where the NWS says it's going to go? Why would he then threaten to fire anyone who refuses to cook the forecasts to comply with his incorrect claims?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/climate/hurricane-dorian-...

Dude is an actual literal child who can't stand to not be the smartest guy in the room, and if anyone corrects him they're fired. He's a nightmare boss and the only reason anyone tolerates him is because he's "on their team" Anyone who does is going to end up like Romney: "not physically safe in our presence anymore".

Can't wait for the reversal in a couple years: "nobody ever supported this guy, everyone knew he was a crazy from day 1". But that's only going to be once he's out of office.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by jrockway on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:14PM (#22551817)
I was also wondering about that. I had a pretty bad cold the second week of February after going to a party where some of my friends, who travel abroad extensively, were sick. It was different than the usual colds I get -- normally I just have a really bad sore throat and muscle pain for a week and a half, this time it was a dry cough and fever, but I honestly didn't feel all that bad. Obviously this matches the symptoms of Coronavirus, but also matches the symptoms of 99 billion other types of cold and flu.

I would like to think that I already got it, but in the end it probably doesn't matter. It is pretty unlikely that I am going to die from it, but it is pretty likely that we go into a recession and people pay less for my labor, stocks will be worth less, and food will be in short supply... so I think in the end, getting sick is just an annoyance (to me personally, I know people are dying) and the real problems come from everyone else getting sick. So either way, I'm sure it doesn't matter.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by pluto9 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:49PM (#22551161)
Something really nasty swept through my office (in the US) at the end of January, and one employee actually died. Some of us were speculating that it could have been early cases of COVID-19, but symptoms only lasted for about 5 days for most of us. From what I can find online, COVID symptoms tend to last about 10-14 days.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by paulmd on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:18PM (#22551417)
There's some suspicion that there are two strains of COVID and one is nastier than the other.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/scientists-identified-strains-...

https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nsr...

And, see my other post, but some researchers suspect that COVID was circulating in Washington (likely elsewhere as well) since about mid-january, so very possible.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22551360

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by pluto9 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:45PM (#22551629)
Interesting. I suppose it's possible. Whatever went around was incredibly contagious compared to the usual flu. Almost the entire office, including myself, came down with it over the course of 1-2 weeks.

I'd like to think you're right. It'd be nice to know that I and the people I'm in regular contact with already have some immunity.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by maoeurk on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:56PM (#22552097)
I got extremely sick with the flu (confirmed influenza type A by test) at the end of January/early February this year in San Francisco despite being vaccinated. I've had the flu once or twice before but I don't remember it being this bad.

It lasted about 5-7 days and came with a high fever, full body pain and soreness to the extent that any type of movement was difficult, delirium and confusion, difficulty eating, and vomiting for 1-2 days (which isn't typical of the flu as I understand it).

I'm 24 and generally in very good health and felt that without modern medicine and sanitation I could have easily died from this. I lost about 5% of my body weight and a lot of muscle.

The reaction to COVID-19 makes me wish we, as a society, took preventative health more seriously in general as the common diseases can be extremely nasty too.

In fact from everything I've heard about COVID-19, it sounds like it wouldn't have been nearly as bad for someone my age as the flu was for me this year.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by clairity on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:11PM (#22551363)
if they had flu-like symptoms, it's unlikely covid-19, because you typically have a lot of mucus in your cough, and covid-19's symptoms are principally (1) high fever and (2) dry cough.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by paulddraper on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @09:28PM (#22552590)
It would have to have nowhere even close to 1%+ mortality rates in order for it to escape detection.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by sroussey on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:09PM (#22549936)
Flu vaccine this year is pretty good: 50% effectiveness.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by m_a_g on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @03:37PM (#22549630)
I can't imagine what would've happened if that meeting had 1000 participants.

I don't think gathering limitations can stop the spread however I believe at the very least they can slow it down.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by dangrossman on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @03:41PM (#22549668)
Nothing will stop the spread. The goal of government and health organizations is only to slow it down so that the number of critical cases at any one time doesn't exceed the capacity of our hospitals.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ummonk on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:57PM (#22550493)
I believe by "stop the spread" people mean stop the exponential growth and make it linear or sublinear, as China and South Korea have done.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by fallmonkey on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:12PM (#22549956)
But China is making rather good progress so far so maybe something is able to stop the spread?
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by filoleg on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:17PM (#22550012)
Minor correction, China REPORTS making rather good progress.

While I am neither a tinfoil hat wearer nor have anything against China, the fact that they were silencing a Wuhan doctor who was trying to alert people and authorities to the virus all the way back in December makes me skeptical of their reported status.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:25PM (#22550091)
China isn't an information blackhole nor do they have perfect censorship. If the outbreak were still accelerating in an exponential fashion it'd be impossible to hide it from the world. They have successfully hit the inflection point on their logistics curve of viral spread (for now, anyway).
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by matwood on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:36PM (#22550202)
And China is reportedly sending equipment to Italy - not something they would do if the infections were still growing. Their actions seem to align with their message.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by filoleg on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:46PM (#22551124)
Genuine question, do you happen to have a source? Not that I don't believe you, I am just curious about the details, such as how many units, for how much (is it free?), etc.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by goesup12 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:58PM (#22551244)
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by filoleg on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:33PM (#22552315)
> Wang assured Di Maio that Italian orders for the ventilators would be made a priority by Chinese firms after similar requests were made by other European countries.

Thanks for sharing, I really appreciate it.

Please correct me if I misunderstood, but the wording makes it sound like they were ordering them from China, i.e., buying, not receiving it as a donation. Which is exactly what I was afraid of. Money is money, and I can totally see some governments, especially the PRC one, prioritizing that over the actual help for their own citizens. Especially in the scenario where they know they are screwed no matter what, so might as well make some quick bucks.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by matwood on Thursday March 12, 2020 @07:35AM (#22555711)
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by smohare on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:22PM (#22550835)
That’s a rather baseless claim.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by microtherion on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:14PM (#22551382)
China now reports that they've already closed 14 temporary hospitals in Wuhan due to decreasing case numbers, and a few more are scheduled to be closed in the next few days: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-03/09/c_138859119.htm

That does not look like the kind of news you'd fake, or would risk doing purely for propaganda reasons.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by filoleg on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:45PM (#22551114)
>nor do they have perfect censorship

Which is exactly how we get all those leaks and info from silenced doctors.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:49PM (#22551159)
Yeah, it's a story of failed censorship and the truth coming out anyway, not successful censorship hiding the scale of the problem. That's impossible so long as China is on the Internet.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by filoleg on Thursday March 12, 2020 @02:21PM (#22559944)
They cannot stop all of it, so things will definitely leak out. However, they can stop a giant majority of it, so while we still get the leaks, the magnitude of the prevented leaks is probably still significant enough that the censorship can be considered as "working".
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by legel on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:48PM (#22552040)
Do not underestimate the Great Firewall. But anyways, from a manufacturing and distribution of basic essential health supplies, and more, China is probably best positioned to help save the world.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by nl on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:30PM (#22550941)
The Wuhan authorities tried to silence her. There's no real reason to disbelieve their numbers now, beyond the problems of getting good numbers in a large country.

Read the WHO/China report. Or look at South Korea.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by elif on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @10:13PM (#22552920)
The WHO among other bodies have visited and done their own data gathering.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:07PM (#22551332)
Many people here are conflating "stop" with "make it non-exponential". "Stop" just ain't going to happen, and hasn't happened anywhere (Vietnam reports they have, but come on). China reports bending the curve away from exponential. That is the goal. It is a very important one.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by learc83 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:18PM (#22551425)
It's not just no longer exponential. The number of active cases is China is in decline. How long they can keep that going is debatable. But as of right now they are effectively stopping it.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:27PM (#22551494)
That is not stopping. Extrapolating your trend to infinity suggests stopping is plausible. Latest data I see is 134 new cases per day in China. Let's take those numbers at face value and believe them (no sarcasm intended). However, these are just known cases. China is not testing everyone. As managing the spread becomes more successful it becomes cost and manpower prohibitive to test enough people to catch them before they spread significantly.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by learc83 on Thursday March 12, 2020 @09:19AM (#22556487)
China has moved the R0 below 1 through some combination of behavior changes, else the number of active cases wouldn't be going down.

If they can keep it below 1, it will die out. It's possible there are many more unknown cases, but if unknown cases are increasing, confirmed cases should be too.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by rm_-rf_ on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:45PM (#22550312)
What I would encourage people to consider is whether this virus is at the level that we would all be happy to allow military enforced city-wide quarantines or travel restrictions...

I understand that this is NOT the flu, but it seems like the best data we have puts the most pessimistic CFR at about 0.6% if you look at the South Korean data (who have done, by far, the best job testing en masse).

I agree that slowing the spread of the virus to help our health care workers avoid being inundated with admissions to the ICU is worth while, but I'm extremely skeptical of embracing what China has done.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ummonk on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:59PM (#22550521)
> but it seems like the best data we have puts the most pessimistic CFR at about 0.6% if you look at the South Korean data

Check your stats. 0.77% of South Koreans who tested positive for the virus have died already, and more of them will die in the future. The CFR is likely to be above 1%.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by rm_-rf_ on Friday March 13, 2020 @03:08PM (#22570007)
Right now the best information I've heard from several epidemiologists who study pandemics is that we are still seeing the results of severity bias, in that people with absolutely no symptoms will be far less likely to get tested. Also, South Korea is not seeing anything close to an exponential increase in cases.

When those same experts see numbers coming out of Italy, they believe very strongly that the number of infected is far higher than being reported because testing is not as widespread.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by scarmig on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @09:07PM (#22552475)
~0.5% is a very reasonable estimate of the initial CFR when an epidemic starts. It's bad, around 5x as much as the flu, but probably not worth a national China-style quarantine.

But it has a key context: that's the CFR for when all patients are treated. In most of China, there were never enough infections to trigger a healthcare system collapse: that's why in all but one province, the CFR was indeed ~0.4%.

In one province, Hubei, the medical system did collapse.

Its CFR jumped to 3-4%. That is worth going to extreme measures to prevent. In the USA, that would amount to ~10M dead.

That is not a seasonal flu.

I think a superior approach for most of the world is one along the lines of Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea: extensive testing and contact tracing and limited but real quarantine measures. But, yes, everything should be on the table to prevent the nightmare healthcare system collapse scenario.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by nopinsight on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:22PM (#22552257)
CFR of 0.6% is a very optimistic figure. It is a naive calculation based on current # deaths / # infections.

1) But # infections were growing exponentially, we need to use numbers from the same cohort, which implies much lower # infections & higher CFR. Naive CFR will go up once infections grow more slowly. (It already is higher than 0.6%).

2) South Korean confirmed cases are much younger than their median age, mainly between 20-29 years old (perhaps because of where superspreading events happen—that church). This age group has a much lower fatality rate from Covid-19.

3) # hospital beds per capita in South Korea is second highest among OECD countries (1st is Japan) and ~4 times that of the US. They already have patients waiting for beds. Most countries will do much worse if they reach the same # infections per capita.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by jacobolus on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:00PM (#22550533)
CFR changes dramatically depending on whether people can get hospital care.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:09PM (#22551348)
We can embrace what China has done, or what S. Korea has done, or what Singapore has done, or what Italy has finally started doing. Any of those would have a dramatically positive effect. Right now, we (U.S.) haven't done any of that. That is the problem.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by sulam on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:16PM (#22549997)
China is now seeing a wave of secondary infections as they relax travel restrictions and as people enter the country from elsewhere. They have not stopped the spread, they simply slowed it down.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by Spooky23 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:30PM (#22550137)
That's the whole point. If you slow it down you can avoid the rapid spike in severe cases that overwhelm the system. It's like traffic -- once you surpass a certain volume, the system locks up and throughput drops.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:25PM (#22550096)
And that in itself is a huge accomplishment that will save many lives.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ummonk on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @09:24PM (#22552571)
I think the point was to do a controlled restart while making sure the rate of secondary infections remains low enough that the impact of the coronavirus remains less than the flu.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by jessriedel on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:33PM (#22550172)
What is your source? I can't see anything visible in the Hopkins data, and all news stories seem to be about continued stability in China.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by wholien on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:20PM (#22550804)
source? China seems to have very low numbers of new infections right now
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by sulam on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:01PM (#22551271)
I work for a company with significant manufacturing in China, our source is people on the ground. So, Anecdata, but well-connected anecdata.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by will_pseudonym on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:18PM (#22550022)
Steps like welding doors shut [0] is not something I can see happening in the Western world.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/08/china-...

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by swader999 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:35PM (#22550190)
I imagine that was done on some doors not all, just to better funnel people to the remaining open exits where they had their manned check points.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by samsolomon on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:54PM (#22550437)
I cannot see that happening in the U.S. without armed confrontations.

Like guns or not, that's the 2nd Amendment at work.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by Eric_WVGG on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:59PM (#22551251)
Is it? Unless you have some sort of evidence that “they didn’t try this because guns,” that’s less than speculation.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by samsolomon on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:46PM (#22551635)
That is ridiculous. I was commenting on a hypothetical situation.

People own guns for defense. There's reason to believe that if people are being trapped in a building against their will, they may use them.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by earthtourist on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:38PM (#22550232)
Rather scary how massive apartment buildings in China, where most people live, are able to be turned into prisons so quickly.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by allovernow on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:17PM (#22550016)
How do we know that the numbers are trustworthy? They weren't for the first two months and China has clamped down on any information leakage. Meanwhile as of last week their factories were still at around 50% capacity or less (check pollution maps online) and now I'm hearing rumors that they're forcing uighurs to work the factories that migrants are refusing to go back to.

I'm not convinced yet. This would not be the first time a communist authoritarian regime lied about a bad situation - far from it, it's standard if you look at history in the Soviet Union for example. Authoritarian regimes cannot work without being respected and/or feared by the people, so they are incentivesed to lie to save face and simultaneously punish anyone who questions the lies.

Especially considering that the longer this drags on, the more likely nations and corporations alike are to pull production from China permanently.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by smohare on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:21PM (#22550815)
Uh, that’s not clear at all given how they report cases.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by earthtourist on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:34PM (#22550175)
We could conceivably stop the spread in the US: Cancel school, declare a national quarantine, provide temporary basic income to workers without WFH ability, start mass testing, deploy the military, and more.

It would require very drastic measures but would undoubtedly save a huge number of lives. Amazingly, leaders in all democratic countries seem to be too cowardly, too dumb, or too short-sighted to take the action required.

They want to exchange lives for money. And it might not even be a good trade. Letting 70% of a country get infected, even over time, might end up costing more lives and more money.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by PKop on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:43PM (#22550283)
I get what you're saying, but realize many people will go without wages in these scenarios, so that has to be accounted for. Also, I've seen experts warn that however long things are shut down, once this is ended, the spread will continue. There's no conceivable span of time things will be "shut down" such that the disease will completely stop spreading.

All this to say, yes, of course shut downs must occur to stop acute problems in healthcare systems and try best to protect elderly. And this should absolutely be prioritized over financial markets (though risks here still matter). But it is going to spread.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by pvh on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:12PM (#22550716)
Counterargument: China
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by SomeCollegeBro on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:25PM (#22550886)
So when China removes all quarantines, what is going to stop the virus from spreading once again? It will spread (of course at a reduced rate since there is some immunity) until one of the following scenarios occurs:

- Virus has exhausted itself with the majority of the population. - Vaccine is developed and universally available. - Virus is eradicated from quarantine (so incredibly unlikely).

I am not an epidemiologist, just writing based off of common sense.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by outworlder on Friday March 13, 2020 @02:06PM (#22569456)
> what is going to stop the virus from spreading once again?

If the quarantines last long enough, the virus will be dead. The hosts will either be dead or will have successfully fought the infection and destroyed the virus. Unless it happens to behave like some viruses that can hide in the nervous system and similar – but there's no indication that that's the case.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by earthtourist on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:45PM (#22552372)
A series of staged quarantines, combined with mass testing, should be able to keep it contained until a vaccine is (hopefully) ready in 18 months.

There's really no great alternative to attempting to contain it. We will most likely trade lives for money and then lose the money anyway. Better to just lose the money by paying a big price early on with a radical containment strategy.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by clairity on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:07PM (#22551334)
> "...deploy the military...save a huge number of lives..."

really, that's the best solution to saving lives?

if you were really worried about preventable deaths, why don't you direct your fear-mongering and authoritarianism toward eradicating distracted driving, since car accidents kill a million people a year?

otherwise, wash your hands and keep a little distance from coughers/sneezers. if you get sick with (1) a high fever and (2) a dry cough, don't go out for 14 days after you feel better, unless you're so sick you need to go see a doctor.

that's it. stop with the hysteria.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:32PM (#22551536)
Your proposed alternative is woefully inadequate and doesn't stop the exponential spread of the disease anytime short of most people getting it.

You flat out do need to shut down most things to get the spread rate below 1.0. Cancel all gatherings of people, shut down non-essential businesses, etc. That's all that works.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by clairity on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:35PM (#22551963)
that's presuming the need to stop the virus at all costs. if we were dealing with the black plague, or even the 1918 flu, that would be entirely reasonable. but with covid-19, that's still debatable, especially given the costs of doing so.

we're apparently collectively ok with 30K americans dying of flu (or alternatively, auto accidents) every year, so it doesn't make sense to go nuts on stopping this virus that's looking more and more like it's a little worse than the yearly flu.

the point being risks need to be properly assessed and proportionately addressed, without hysteria.

the underlying question about whether we value human lives enough is another matter we certainly should continue to discuss (for the record, i think we should value human lives a little more relative to economic considerations, and the response to something like covid-19 would correspondingly be a little more proactive, but still not hasty and panicked).

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by earthtourist on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:54PM (#22552424)
"this virus that's looking more and more like it's a little worse than the yearly flu."

You're spreading ignorance.

Every medical expert is saying it is 5-20x deadlier than the seasonal flu, because that's what the data says. They're predicting 40-70% infection rates.

A low estimate of 0.05% mortality rate with 40% infected is: 640,000 dead in the US alone. It could end up being a 1.5% mortality rate with 70% infected: 3,360,000 dead in the US alone.

Please do some reading: https://www.flattenthecurve.com

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ummonk on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @09:28PM (#22552592)
It would likely be >1% mortality rate even with adequate healthcare. If it hit 40-70% of the population though, people would be basically on their own, so mortality rate would be 5-10%. Tens of millions of deaths.

Of course, this would never happen, since we as a society would enact major policies to slow the spread long before it got anywhere near that bad, just as Italy is doing for example. It just doesn't make any sense to wait for things to get worse to start enacting policies to slow its spread; if we're going to have to do it at some point, might as well do it early and reduce the spread.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:03PM (#22551290)
70% of the country will get infected. No matter what we do. The only difference is how long it will take. Even with the most drastic measures imaginable, 70% will get infected. If they all get infected in the next month, the death rate skyrockets. If it takes 6-12 months, the death rate will be ~0.5%. Heck, we might even have reliable clinical results indicating a useful treatment by then. Right now on that front all we have is a very small amount of anecdata, but we should expect some decent data on Remdesivir from China soon, and I guarantee you that every pharma/biotech in the world with a nucleotide analogue is doing testing/screening today.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ummonk on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @09:31PM (#22552608)
> 70% of the country will get infected. No matter what we do.

That's not really true. South Korea and China have proven that this thing can be stopped and R0 can be driven below 1. It just requires decisive action by the state (either heavy quarantining or mass testing coupled with behavioral changes by the population).

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Thursday March 12, 2020 @04:10AM (#22554753)
Stopped has not been proven anywhere. Maybe my conviction was a little too strongly worded, but we shall learn in a few years via serological testing regardless. My guess is that when final numbers come out we will find that about 50-70% of the global people are seropositive (meaning they have been exposed). That's about what we get for most endemic viruses. Check back in a few years and we shall see.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ummonk on Thursday March 12, 2020 @02:05PM (#22559787)
Let me put it this way: symptomatic cases as a percent of the population in China and South Korea are multiple orders of magnitude lower than what we saw on the cruise ship, and the growth of cases testing positive (or showing symptoms) is slowing (in absolute not just relative terms).
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by jessaustin on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:04PM (#22552140)
Rather than calling out the troops, who after all are also humans who can spread disease, why not think about money the government could spend in less destructive ways? They could pass a law that allowed CDC to designate particular counties "at-risk" for particular periods. Any resident of such counties whose cell phone records document that she or he didn't leave her or his home for a whole week during the period could get paid say $1000 tax-free for that week. Sure, it wouldn't be 100% effective, but it would be more effective and probably cheaper in the long run than violent national guard police actions.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by anigbrowl on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:54PM (#22550436)
It might, but if the measures are drastic enough people will start shooting. (Please don't construe that as an endorsement or advocacy; it's a comment on the complex socio-political mores in the USA.) Pick your poison.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by TylerE on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:45PM (#22550310)
How do you feed the people in your scenario? Many don't have more than a few days of food in-house, if that.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:48PM (#22551142)
This scenario does not shut down grocery stores, and allows you out of the home in scheduled slots solely for the purposes of going to a grocery store or pharmacy/doctor/hospital. All other trips are banned. This is what China and Italy are doing.

There is no country on Earth that is gonna lock up all its citizens indoors and starve them to death. Governments aren't that stupid.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by TallGuyShort on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:02PM (#22551280)
So you can absolutely "stop" the spread with an absolute quarantine. I don't think you can absolutely "stop" the spread if everyone is using enough infrastructure to go register for a brand new basic income program that might work better than say, public options for healthcare, or alternately keep going to work, if they keep going to the grocery store, including any public transportation required, keep working at required services like fire, police, medical, etc. and if they keep doing any number of other essential things we're forgetting here.

And were there not videos of government agents welding bars on windows and destroying food to punish quarantine breakers recently?

I think you're dramatically oversimplifying how this all works.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:08PM (#22551338)
Let me tell you how the grocery stores in Italy are operating (I have relatives there):

First of all, you have to schedule a specific time slot to go shopping, to ensure that the store never gets too crowded. Secondly, you aren't allowed within two meters of anyone at any point. All of the store employees are wearing protective gear (gloves, masks, etc.). When you checkout, you push your cart up to them, they ring everything up, set it back down, and then you pack your bags yourself while they go away (to maintain a distance of two meters). They might be changing gloves with every checkout, too.

I have less knowledge of China, but I think it's similar. I saw a video of a ranged thermometer being used on every person before being allowed inside. Maybe Italy is doing similar. If and only if you have a fever or a confirmed infection then are you not allowed to leave your dwelling at all (unless it's to go to a hospital); that's when you get your food delivered.

With containment measures this drastic, you can definitely keep the infection rate below 1, which is all you need to stop an infection. And it's exactly these kinds of measures that need to be taken, because food is essential. You cannot have people starving to death en masse. Grocery stores are essential, and it's possible to allow grocery shipping while largely mitigating the spread of disease. Needless to say, all gatherings are banned, most stores are shut, and restaurants are to-go/delivery only (if they're even still open).

And I'm not drastically over-simplifying things, unless you somehow think that "shut down almost everything except for grocery stores and healthcare" is "over-simplified". This is working in China. They are stopping the spread of the disease while simultaneously maintaining access to food and healthcare.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by vanniv on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:32PM (#22551533)
Italy is already working on doing exactly that. They've closed everything except the food stores -- most of which are running out of food with no prospects towards resupply, since roads are closed and workers aren't permitted to work at the plants that are necessary parts of the food supply chain.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by bonif on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:30PM (#22551928)
Come on. This is not true.

The whole supply chain is guaranteed (and related companies allowed to work).

Source: I'm italian and directly affected by this

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by anigbrowl on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:02PM (#22552130)
Some first hand detail would be greatly appreciated.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:43PM (#22551617)
What I heard is that roads have checkpoints on them, but aren't closed for necessary trips, which would include food transport. A solo operator of a vehicle driving food to a warehouse or grocery store isn't a big infection risk, especially with appropriate precautions being taken like social distancing, wearing masks, washing hands frequently, etc.

The food production aspect though is more problematic; it can involved larger groups of people and more human contact.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by vanniv on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:04PM (#22551747)
Yeah, there may be one more delivery to the typical store before the end, but without workers, warehouses will empty, and without an economy, generally everything will collapse.

Economies aren't just playthings for little pieces of multicolored paper -- they're the process by which we live a life different from that of a wild animal.

Life without an economy would be smelly, brutal, and short.

Personally, I pray that the US won't try this idiocy, and further pray that people won't stand for it if they try.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:05PM (#22551764)
I don't think it'll get that bad in Italy. It wouldn't make sense to allow that to happen, as the cure would be worse than the disease. China has managed somehow.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by vanniv on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:31PM (#22551939)
There is no way to know what actually happened in China, due the way they control information.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by pengaru on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:03PM (#22551289)
> Many don't have more than a few days of food in-house

At this point if you don't have at least a week's supply of rice on hand you're just being careless. It's dirt cheap and large sacks are readily available everywhere.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hef19898 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:16PM (#22551402)
Which still leaves the toilet paper problem unsolved, all the rice needs to go somewhere!

But in all seriousness, general guidelines are already that, even without stuff like Corona or not.

One advice from the supply chain perspective, so. If you have to stock up, do so in small quantities across multiple stores. reducing the number of stock-outs at the point-of-sale has an unbelievable efeect in stabilizing supply chains. and the last thing we want is unstable supply chains right now. As rediculous as it is, if something like th toilet paper scare happens to more life-ciritical stuff things turn a lot less funny rather quickly.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by tomp on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:03PM (#22552133)
If the water keeps running, no toilet paper isn't a real problem. If the water stops running, you've bigger problems.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by smohare on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:19PM (#22550800)
This is so laughable.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by cameldrv on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:45PM (#22550315)
The spread is being stopped in China. It is possible.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:12PM (#22551370)
The spread is not being stopped. It is being slowed down. Huge difference. Slowed down is still very good and a very good goal for us, but the opportunity to "stop" COVID-19 has passed in the U.S. and EU.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by learc83 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:21PM (#22551447)
The number of active cases is down from the peak China. If it continued like this without imported cases the virus would die out as each new infection infects fewer than 1 other person.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:40PM (#22551600)
" each new infection infects fewer than 1 other person"

That is quite an assumption. We shall see, I hope you are right.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by learc83 on Thursday March 12, 2020 @09:15AM (#22556436)
Well the number of active cases in China is dropping every day, so it's not an assumption, it's just math.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Friday March 13, 2020 @12:41AM (#22564786)
The number of active known and reported cases appears to be dropping. There are three assumptions in that sentence.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by learc83 on Friday March 13, 2020 @09:18AM (#22567008)
China is still testing aggressively. If the number of active cases were expanding, much less expanding exponentially, the number of reported cases would be more than a handful per day.

It's a pretty good assumption to make.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by disappearance on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:49PM (#22550368)
Not sure we yet know at what cost though.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by cameldrv on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:39PM (#22551049)
Gotta be less than the cost of losing 5% of the population.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by theseadroid on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @03:57PM (#22549840)
There's a Canadian Covid 19 case who attended a conference with 25,000 attendees. Let's see how that goes...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-first-communi...

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by altoidaltoid on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:56PM (#22551221)
and several cases from Exabeam folks at RSA...
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by uberduper on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:24PM (#22550084)
What on earth were they doing there to infect so many?
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ergothus on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:42PM (#22550276)
Probably just shaking a lot of hands.

If it survives for 12 hours on surfaces, you only need 1 person to have poor hygiene to expose a LOT of people. And "normal" hygiene levels pass infection around plenty. I wash my hands when I go to the bathroom or before I prepare food. The rest of the time I'm just passing whatever I touch to whatever else I touch. I've given up on not touching my face. I'm sure I'm not the worst in these areas.

As I understand it, you'd have this sort of infection rate with the seasonal flu if there wasn't some level of herd immunity, and you certainly have roughly this level of infection with the common cold - "Con crud" is a thing - it's just not much remarked upon as unexpected.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by pengaru on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:12PM (#22551375)
The dude on Joe Rogan's podcast made it sound like the covid spread is mostly just a matter of breathing the same air.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by jjeaff on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:29PM (#22552293)
The CDC has also indicated that it can be spread through the air. But physical contact is more likely.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by pengaru on Thursday March 12, 2020 @03:50PM (#22560999)
It's annoying, there's conflicting information on this front, like this article about the CDC changing its recommendation on the type of face masks hospital personnel should use [0].

They're claiming you can't get it by simply breathing the same air, and saying surgical masks are sufficient.

[0] https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/articl...

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ilamont on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:53PM (#22551202)
It opened with breakfast, at 7 a.m., in the Harbor View Ballroom of the Boston Marriott Long Wharf hotel, where a wide bank of windows offers a sublime view across the inner harbor, steel gray on a cloudy morning, to Logan Airport in the distance.

About 175 executives were expected at the Biogen leadership conference on Feb. 26. Employees from Biogen locations around the United States and the world reunited with colleagues they don’t often get to see.

They greeted each other enthusiastically, with handshakes and hugs, and then caught up over breakfast, picking from plates of pastries and the self-serve hot food bar. They were there for two days of discussions and presentations about the future of the Cambridge-based, multinational biotech firm, which develops therapies for neurological diseases. It was the kind of under-the-radar gathering that happens in this region just about every week.

Full article: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/11/nation/how-biogen-lea...

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by matwood on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:40PM (#22550249)
When I go to industry conferences I have non-stop meetings with current customers, potential customers and partners. Every meal is some sort of meeting. Given the distributed nature of business today, when you do get everyone in the same place, you want to get some face to face meetings setup.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by kortilla on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:56PM (#22550482)
Touched a door handle