Read on Twitter
spain has done quite a lot of interesting covid tracking.
much of it has not made its way into US discourse because it's in spanish.
i'd like to share some as it sheds some doubt on lockdown and mask efficacy and several other common covid claims.
much of it has not made its way into US discourse because it's in spanish.
i'd like to share some as it sheds some doubt on lockdown and mask efficacy and several other common covid claims.
leaving home more often seems to carry no extra risk. those leaving 7 days a week seem to have slightly lower covid positivity (3.8% vs 4.0%) vs those never leaving.
those wearing masks seem to carry greater risk as well (3.8% vs 3%)
those wearing masks seem to carry greater risk as well (3.8% vs 3%)
obviously, this is nothing like randomized or controlled and there are lots of possible confounds around selection bias and the small n in the "never mask" cohort but the lockdown data in particular looks pretty suggestive.
i would not rush to discount it.
i would not rush to discount it.
at the very least, it supports letting people make this choice based on personal assessment of risk.
the consequences from doing so appear to be negligible relative to other cohorts and possibly even beneficial.
the consequences from doing so appear to be negligible relative to other cohorts and possibly even beneficial.
there is some other interesting data as well:
the upper classes (75th percentile and up) are getting less covid than the lower classes (25th and down).
this may relate to overall health or to more and better separated living space.
lockdown may affect the poor more.
the upper classes (75th percentile and up) are getting less covid than the lower classes (25th and down).
this may relate to overall health or to more and better separated living space.
lockdown may affect the poor more.
we also see another interesting relationship around prevalence and the size of the community you live in.
the presumption has always been that big cites and density drives more infection. but this shows something a bit different.
small towns get hit hardest.
the presumption has always been that big cites and density drives more infection. but this shows something a bit different.
small towns get hit hardest.
this may actually make some epidemiological sense. in a large city, you have more chances to get infected, but you also have had more chances in the past to generate cross resistance and likely have a more active immune system from more challenges.
these two factors move in opposition to one another.
perhaps the density swamps previous resistance generation in a big city vs small city but this winds up flipping in small towns where low resistance dominates.
this is speculative, but seems plausible.
perhaps the density swamps previous resistance generation in a big city vs small city but this winds up flipping in small towns where low resistance dominates.
this is speculative, but seems plausible.
and this may be consonant with this finding:
infection rates were highest in households with 3-5 people. 6 or more drops down to the same level as 2.
could this be the same effect? more prior exposure in a big household leads to more immunity/more active immune systems?
infection rates were highest in households with 3-5 people. 6 or more drops down to the same level as 2.
could this be the same effect? more prior exposure in a big household leads to more immunity/more active immune systems?
i really have not seen a whole lot of study on that or how the curves are shaped and cross. if anyone has, would love to see it.
you can read the whole source document here if you want to dig in.
https://portalcne.isciii.es/enecovid19/informes/informe_cuarta_ronda.pdf
you can read the whole source document here if you want to dig in.
https://portalcne.isciii.es/enecovid19/informes/informe_cuarta_ronda.pdf
