D&D and the rising pandemic

[Umbran]

3. How long do you remain contagious if you have the virus. 2 weeks? 1 month?

So, what I've been able to find says the following:
Let us say you are exposed to the virus.
If you are infected, you become contagious within 24 to 48 hours. This virus does not seem to lie dormant for significant time.
You may then be contagious for up to two weeks without showing symptoms.
If you do not show symptoms in that period the likelihood is that you were not infected at all, or were infected and had such a mild case that no symptoms were noted. In any case, at that point you are unlikely to be able to infect anyone.

If you do show symptoms, I don't know how long after they abate you are considered "safe".

 

[slobster]

Wow, this toilet paper thing was predicted long ago

I'm old enough to remember those people before Y2K on morning news shows bragging about how they were preparing for the apocalypse by buying garages full of toilet paper. The reasons were never clear back then, either!

 

[seebs]

So, what I've been able to find says the following:
Let us say you are exposed to the virus.
If you are infected, you become contagious within 24 to 48 hours. This virus does not seem to lie dormant for significant time.
You may then be contagious for up to two weeks without showing symptoms.
If you do not show symptoms in that period the likelihood is that you were not infected at all, or were infected and had such a mild case that no symptoms were noted. In any case, at that point you are unlikely to be able to infect anyone.

If you do show symptoms, I don't know how long after they abate you are considered "safe".

As I understand it, by the time the symptoms are getting better, you're probably no longer contagious, but don't rely on my vague memory/understanding.

 

[HarbingerX]

1. Not everyone shows symptoms.
2. How many people have 2 weeks to a months worth of supplies at this point. My bet is very few.
3. How long do you remain contagious if you have the virus. 2 weeks? 1 month?

Which implies that the lowest risk time to stock up is now. Get a months worth of supplies if possible. Then don’t go out again for a month.

There’s just too many people where this is not a reasonable strategy though - finances, work etc. Which comes back to - the best time for anyone to shop is now.

I do actually agree with you stocking up now. In fact you should have stocked up last week. I was just answering the question as to why the risk of transmission is lower later when the population is self isolating.

I also agree that 2 weeks is on the lower end. As long as there are people not isolating. The next big risk will be when infection rate begins to drop and people start breaking the isolation and a new population of infected but non-symptomatic people is formed.

 

[Umbran]

Let's do a toy model.

Yes, but there's a point in this that is missing, but relevant to the discussion at hand - what kind of contact engages the risk factor?

Hanging out in a bar or restaurant, shoulder-to-shoulder with others, for a couple of hours likely does.

Walking through a sparsely populated grocery store, passing within three feet of individuals only momentarily, touching only the items you intend to take home, probably does not.

Which is to say that if you intend to go grocery shopping once every couple of weeks, it doesn't really matter when you go - the one trip doesn't pose a whole lot of risk of spread. You should not be going to the grocery every day, because each trip is a risk, and they add up.

 

[HarbingerX]

Yes, but there's a point in this that is missing, but relevant to the discussion at hand - what kind of contact engages the risk factor?

Hanging out in a bar or restaurant, shoulder-to-shoulder with others, for a couple of hours likely does.

Walking through a sparsely populated grocery store, passing within three feet of individuals only momentarily, touching only the items you intend to take home, probably does not.

Which is to say that if you intend to go grocery shopping once every couple of weeks, it doesn't really matter when you go - the one trip doesn't pose a whole lot of risk of spread. You should not be going to the grocery every day, because each trip is a risk, and they add up.

This picture from Infection Trajectory: See Which Countries are Flattening Their COVID-19 Curve shows the risk for different events based on 2000 or 20000 cases in the general population.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Yesterday was probably my last trip outside the house (other than walking the dog and going for walks around the neighborhood and woods) for a while. Stopped by the FLGS and the local Asian grocer/restaurant to get take-out and some groceries. Two packs of natto, amongst other things, because priorities.

Still looking at which platform to use for online gaming. Pretty much leaning towards Teams or Discord. Since I run TotM, the dedicated ones seem to be offering more than I really need. A/V is the primary thing, though some background tunes wouldn't go awry.

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's do a toy model. This model is a toy just because it makes it easier to do the math

In this toy model, people get sick at the start of a week (depending on how risky they are), and spread at the end of the week (ditto).

There are 1000 people. They start off with 100 infected. In simulation 1 they do Risk 2 first, then Risk 0.5, then Risk 0.5

In simulation 2, they do Risk 0.5, Risk 2, Risk 0.5. Delaying risk.

New infections.

200 150 225 in sim 1.
50 300 225 in sim 2.

Sim 2 has a delayed spike. This matters. And the same number of cases at the end.

With exponential growth, early actions have magnified consequences.

But a*b*c is the same value as b*c*a. In the end, it doesn't matter, but we are hoping that we get the spike down so our health care systems don't break. As much social distancing was close to too late, getting the initial spike down is key to not overloading ICU beds.

4 weeks after that the initial spike of ICU bed use will start falling, and infections then could matter less than infections now.

Let’s do another model. Where 1/2 of the population isolated immediately for 2 weeks and the others shop on and off over the next 3 weeks.

Am I less likely to get the virus and transmit it if i shop now, during week 1 or during week 2?

 

[NotAYakk]

Let’s do another model. Where 1/2 of the population isolated immediately for 2 weeks and the others shop on and off over the next 3 weeks.

Am I less likely to get the virus and transmit it if i shop now, during week 1 or during week 2?

Is R0 in that situation 1.0 or not? Do people self-isolate better once they have symptoms?

But, using reasonable assumptions, it is likely you are more likely to get it and spread it now, but getting it now and spreading it now is worse for the population and health care system.

Imagine you hit the emergency button and got the epidemic under control just in time. In 4-8 weeks your health care system is going to be maxed out with ICU usage. And that measures are bringing R0 down below 1 effectively.

If you get an infection or spread it now, you add to that spike. If you do actions that could spread it in 2-4 weeks, you add less to that spike; you add it to the falling action after the heath care system overload.

In a strange way, risky behavior doesn't matter if you have or catch covid 19 from it (!) The product of risky behavior over the population over time determines how much covid 19 spreads.

 

[HarbingerX]

Let’s do another model. Where 1/2 of the population isolated immediately for 2 weeks and the others shop on and off over the next 3 weeks.

Am I less likely to get the virus and transmit it if i shop now, during week 1 or during week 2?

If only 1/2 the population isolates then it's not much better than no isolation.

Stop doing models and posts - go get your supplies.