‘I’m not an epidemiologist but’: The rise of the corona influencers
buzzfeednews.com
buzzfeednews.com
H1N1 ended up not being as fatal as SARSCoV2, but we didn't know that at the time. People were saying it had a CFR of >1% in Mexico (where the original outbreak was). That number dropped way down as better data came in after the outbreak.
But still, up to 575,000 people may have died from it. That's not nothing.
And... nobody cared? People were calm. It was on the news, but there was no panic.
I think part of it was how social media has changed the way we consume and respond to information. I've seen extreme panic on FB, Reddit, HN, Twitter -- which seems to cause more panic. Everything in the media is turned up to 11 now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic
It's interesting to go back further and read this Bird Flu article from 2005, where a UN Health Official warned of 150 million possible deaths, and said things like, "It's like a combination of global warming and HIV/Aids 10 times faster than it's running at the moment." So, the media has always turned things up to 11, but something about the current era has exacerbated the issue.
Keep in mind the original SARS had a death rate of 10%, so obviously there was a tremendous amount of fear that this new related virus would be similarly lethal.
No, they aren't US policy of suppression was an abrupt policy turn that came with this report: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid19-imperial-rese...
The Chinese example didn't change overnight, the information available about predicted outcomes of different policy approaches in the US and UK did, and that's what drove policy change, including the Trump Administration flipping from claiming it was a hoax cooked up by political opponents to treating it as a serious issue.
This time around the outbreak originated in China that covered up the issue initially and ended up making the issue a lot worse than it could have been. Additionally, once everyone should've been paying attention on a global scale, Mr President down there in the US just tried to downplay the possible effects of a pandemic and it looks, at the moment, like he again just made everything worse.
Usually we can sit safe and confident at home that the government is overreacting to the situation and everything will be fine, this time around the authorities most globally visible (the US and China where the outbreak started) have obviously bungled their response and we're seeing a lot of panic because people don't have faith in the ability for the globe to respond in a unified manner.
Just this morning, CNN was frothing at the mouth at Trump calling it the "China virus" -- I mean, yeah, it's a virus that came from China -- and they have an op-ed on how this term is stoking xenophobia.
The usage of that term is solely to try and deflect responsibility for anything domestic to China and pass the buck... it also has the potential to cause hate crimes in a time when we really should be unifying as nations.
That's because it is. There have been many reports of harassment and assaults on Chinese Americans, and this kind of label doesn't go away. The term "Spanish Flu" is still used 100 years later, not because it originated there (it didn't -- it almost certainly originated in midwestern USA) but because the media paid more attention there.
The terms we use matter.
This is an extreme, uncited, and frankly inflammatory extrapolation. There have been only a handful of such attacks -- I believe 5-ish (reported by The New Yorker and CNN). It's just the typical race-baiting we've seen that generates outrage clicks. Calling it the "China Virus" has no more societal impact (which is: minor at best) than the "Spanish Flu."
Really, it just strengthens my point about the nonsense the media is peddling, instead of asking the populace to remain calm, take precautions, and stay safe.
How many are an acceptable number? Or tolerable number?
Dogwhistling for racism isn't an innocent action and deserves no understanding, it is hate filled and driven out of self-interest by those doing it.
This is an absolutely insane analogy -- not to mention grossly off-base. No one is scapegoating the Chinese people (or, even less so, Americans that happen to have Asian ancestry). Calling it the "Chinese Virus" simply points to its geographic source, i.e. Wuhan, China.
Yeah, Godwin's Law strikes again. Not everything is literally Hitler.
> This is an extreme, uncited, and frankly inflammatory extrapolation. There have been only a handful of such attacks -- I believe 5-ish (reported by The New Yorker and CNN).[0]
So nobody is doing this? Or have there been incidents that you yourself have previously acknowledged?
I tried civilly engaging in discourse with you earlier[1]. But now it seems like you're arguing with people just to argue, not to actually discuss these topics.
Also, you can correct people who are mistaken about where it originated without saying "Chinese flu". E.g. "actually, the coronavirus originated in China". I remarked on this to another user who said they just wanted to stick to the facts about its origins.[2]
If you're intent on making sure China is regarded as the source and/or culprit, you can emphasize further by adding something like, "and that's why the majority of cases and deaths from [coronavirus/covid-19] were in China. It started there." And that can be said perfectly fine without "Chinese virus".
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22621821
How about I provide some personal anecdata instead?
My (Asian) parents -- who prefer Fox over CNN and vote right, in case anyone fears they're under the spell of frothing journalists -- have been more nervous about going about in public. My dad's car's mirror was smashed a couple nights ago.
In a similar way that I'm not as deeply affected by the current economic environment as a low wage worker is, you're not as affected by the cultural perception as people like my family are. With that in mind, I ask that you acknowledge that such acts could very well be more common than the sensationalized ones that liberal media eagerly pounce upon, and thus more common than you personally might be aware of.
Well, if one believed that both these things were equally true, which one would be more worthwhile writing about?
I've seen a LOT of stories about the problems of hoarding, pleas to stop hoarding, etc...
I just assume bad cases of confirmation virus when I see claims like this, now.
Imagine if you're about to go skydiving and I'm responsible for packing your chute. As I pack, you notice a cord looks badly frayed. I tell you, "The cord is totally not frayed! They all look like that." Then I tell you, "Don't worry, we'll replace it before you go out." Then you find out we didn't actually replace it, and you look up on the internet that it can easily kill you. Then I say, "I knew it was a problem all along but we have a plan in place to handle that."
Would all of that make you feel less or more afraid of your skydiving experience?
It seems like Western democracies are very ill-equipped to deal with problems of this nature where all future outcomes are bad and the chosen executive has to deliberately choose the least worse. Facing such scenarios it's often the case our leaders choose not to take any political damage and do nothing until we are at the edge of catastrophe or take half-hearted measures that solve nothing. To take any deliberate and effective action would be not seen be seen as prescient aversion, but considered a wasteful diversion. The social, political and media environments, in particular the "news of the day" media, of the West are suited to guiding executives towards quick and decisive actions in the midst of the crisis because they are biased towards describing the here and now rather than the where and when. For most problems a society faces this may be a sufficient means of dealing with those issues. However in pandemics there are two catastrophes happening simultaneously, the one people think is happening in their midst based on the here and now, and the far more severe catastrophe epidemiologists know is happening based on the where and when. At the start of this crisis Western governments reacted to the former in the expected manner, that is with half-hearted measures and a dismissive attitude, what we needed was for them to react to the crisis epidemiology was describing.
There is very little excuse for Western governments during this pandemic. They caught a lucky break with the SARS outbreak in 2003 and became complacent, choosing not to bolster responses to epidemics as Japan, Taiwan and S.Korea have done. Then they wasted the time lag between the virus outbreak in China to it reaching their countries by declining to take effective actions.
It's certainly possible that SARSCoV2 will have fewer total deaths than H1N1.
Out of confirmed infections. The fatality rate would only decrease as more people are discovered to have been infected.
Everyone who is ill enough to be about to die will end up in a hospital, with the virus already being transmitted in the society the point in testing everyone else is trending towards negligible.
Sure if the measures taken allows the rate becomes low enough again, then contact tracing might become worth doing again.
You can also try to do statistical tests on some cohorts of population and extrapolate from there but if the resources are limited then saving lives counts more.
Hopefully we can avoid saturating the medical system in the US.
Now, that's some hard facts you have there!
Nobody knows how many people died from H1N1 in 2009. The CDC has only estimates and the range is huge:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/pandemic-global-estimates...
And that is why I used the words I did.
With quarantines and traffic, activity, consumption slowdown, the air quality is getting much better, did we just discover the solution for global warming indirectly? which is a much more important problem than those human viruses by the way
The reason COVID-19 get singled out might not be the mortality rate alone (it looks edging close to 10% right now in Italy, which is alarmingly scary), but more on its impact on paralyzing our health care system with a swarm of people requires hospitalization. And it achieves all this in record time.
I don't agree this is a perception problem, the threat is real. Social media can panic, but you can't really tell people it is OK when patients are lying/dying on the floor of hospitals.
I suspect that you might have confused SARSCov2 for SARS?
Please stop dividing deaths by confirmed cases and reporting that as mortality rate.
The number of confirmed cases is much, much larger than actual cases, in particular in outbreak zones where testing is very limited.
Current fatality rate is less than 1% of confirmed cases.
Currently experts are giving us data and people are giving us sources.
[1] Countries like Iran literally have mass graves at this point and here you are claiming this is overblown by social media.
You really need to stop.
If someone understands this crude metric as "If you catch it and you show symptoms and you test positive, your likelihood of dieing is roughly (deaths divided by confirmed cases)" then that seems reasonable to me.
"Try to avoid catching it." is reasonable advice, as is "Be aware that you could catch it and be asymptomatic while still being infectious." to discourage people from visiting their grandparents this month.
I don't feel like I'm being misinformed if I divide deaths by confirmed cases, I feel like I'm getting a rough worst-case estimate.
John Ionnadis has been writing about this:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...
He's a medic, epidemiologist and author of "Why most published research results are wrong", probably one of the most influential papers of the last 20 years across all of science. He says:
even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes. In fact, such “mild” coronaviruses infect tens of millions of people every year, and account for 3% to 11% of those hospitalized in the U.S. with lower respiratory infections each winter. These “mild” coronaviruses may be implicated in several thousands of deaths every year worldwide, though the vast majority of them are not documented with precise testing.
The whole essay is worth a read. It has more to say about questionable use of data and analysis than SARS-CoV-2 itself but is worth reading regardless.
20% of cases require hospitalization. Once the hospitals are taken out, the fatality rate skyrockets and we're in the nightmare phrase - 400+ people died in Italy, today.
It's clearly very hard to let go of what looks like data and say "actually, we don't know". That's a driving cause of current events. There's a lot of analysis out there right now quoting things we "know" about SARS-CoV-2 and when you dig in, it's not real knowledge, it's a garbled or misused statistic. We have lots of epidemiology but not enough epistemology.
At the start, the "Many thousands of mildly symptomatic infections aren't recorded" claim had plausibility. Now it needs to die in fire. This stuff has demonstrated it's qualities at scale and we need to get with it.
This won't be the case for other countries. 1% is way too optimistic at this point.
The fatality rate was 0.8%. The majority of their passengers were over 60 years old, so even this number is too high compared to the global population.
Even that would be catastrophic for if the virus infects a large percentage of the population, as it is rapidly moving to do. Thus we cannot be even in the least bit sanguine on this and need to move with speed against it. This is in no way comparable to 2009 or other recent events (contrary to your ggp).
Basically, there's enough information currently to tell people who pay attention and consider rationally that we need to spend every possible effort confining infections and quarantining, basically the entire earth. There is no alternative.
Do you have an argument against this other than die in a fire? In the UK the government is literally advising people to NOT call the NHS if they suspect they are infected but stay home and self isolate unless they become severely ill and cannot cope. It's pretty reasonable to assume the denominator is much larger from this behaviour.
You can read the discussion of the reasons to be pretty certain of the 1%+ fatality rate and how that's catastrophic on the rest of my thread and in more detail elsewhere. As to the UK plan, look here:
"I'm an epidemiologist, when I heard the UK plan, I thought it was satire":
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/epidem...
Your link shows the seriously ill among the unclosed cases as 59 people. If those dies, it won't increase the death significantly - maybe bump it to 1.5%.
But an increase to the base death rate doesn't matter. We should know a 1% death rate is going to be catastrophic and take action.
Edit: originally read you as arguing the death rate as too high so different argument. It's probably better to assume a higher death rate regardless anyway so I changed "you are wrong" to "not quite right" too.
The only out way is to test everybody in a large random sample. Even South Korea doesn't do that - people volunteer or a pushed to get tested. The end result is all testing to date has been done on the parts of population who are more likely to be feeling the effects of covid-19.
That skews everything. Even "every person infects 2.3 others" becomes suspect if there is a large reservoir of people out there who have it, are infectious but don't know it. Kids in particular, being the little germ bags they are, areseemingly mostly unaffected by it and so could be a huge vector.
Counting the dead after it's over is one way to by-pass that measurement problem. In Australia, a bad flu season kills 0.015% of the population. My gut feeling is we don't as yet have any idea where covid-19 will end up. Italy is currently sitting at 0.0083%, so they aren't up to the flu levels yet. The current overwhelming of the hospitals could be caused by an extraordinarily high infection rate coupled with it being very, very mild for most people, particularly kids. Or it could because it's as horrible as the media paints it. We simply don't know.
Because it wasn’t an election year in the US.
Sure, information (and misinformation) travels much faster now, but I am not sure if that is necessarily a bad thing. It might have done more help than harm in this case for all we know. I think that is the case because this one is not as deadly, so sensationalization and fear-mongering is not easy. If the fatality rate was like 50% (as it was for Avian flu, I found recently to my surprise), it could have been way worse with the media.
From https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmissi...
>>> Can someone spread the virus without being sick? People are thought to be most contagious when they are most symptomatic (the sickest). Some spread might be possible before people show symptoms; there have been reports of this occurring with this new coronavirus, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.
Doesn't seem to indicate asymptomatic carriers are a big concern?
"Most contagious when symptomatic" is not even remotely the same thing as "not contagious unless symptomatic". We also don't have a good picture of what symptoms look like aside from the most serious cases.
I would say asymptomatic carriers are the biggest concern.
>>> The sequence of events suggests that the coronavirus may have been transmitted by the asymptomatic carrier.
>>> If the findings in this report of presumed transmission by an asymptomatic carrier are replicated, the prevention of COVID-19 infection would prove challenging. The mechanism by which asymptomatic carriers could acquire and transmit the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 requires further study.
>>> Considering the reported similarity in viral loads between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients [14] and that transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic cases may be possible, even though there is no clear evidence as yet of asymptomatic transmission, the relatively high proportion of asymptomatic infections could have public health implications
No clear evidence of asymptomatic transmission. A lot of 'probably', 'suggests' as before. It's certainly a growing possibility, but not I'd not call it proven yet as a big factor.
[0] https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E...
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/27620...
On the other, I think Tomas Pueyo's medium blog is really important and correct imo as another amateur pundit. The thing about it is, even with people saying useful, what you really need is the CDC and other authorities being with it enough that they command the most credibility and with them failing to achieve that, even good punditry can only do so much.
2009 h1n1[1] was aggressively pushed by the WHO as having a 60% CFR[2]. Similar issue to corona19, basing everything on literal test results. Meaningless! Presumably why WHO telling the world to test everything.
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8094655.stm [2] https://jech.bmj.com/content/62/6/555.abstract [3] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/16/swine-flu-pand...
IMO this is better than the situation in previous similar disasters. Like in the 1918 influenza epidemic, many governments censored information, and there was no social media to circumvent this, so the public understanding of the real situation was quite poor.
People just hate unknowns, and especially "unknown unknowns" and therefore latch onto the most dramatic damage estimates and act accordingly, often further exacerbating the situation.
https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/biomerica-begins-s...
https://www.biomedomics.com/products/infectious-disease/covi...
Maybe we need more people on Twitter to start demanding it? (I'm not really being sarcastic, as crazy as that sounds.)
So, no thank you. I will continue to take my own safety into my own hands, because they seem more concerned with the safety of business interests.
I've been loudly talking about what's happening in Italy, because we had time to get ready in the US if we took it seriously.
Any curve you see today which claims to outline the progress of COVID-19 (rather than the progress of COVID-19 testing and response) is extremely misleading.
From my perspective it seems clear that the American public has been in the grips of anti-intellectualism for quite a long time. In 1980 Asimov made the following famous statement:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
For the record, I'm not American, and not anti-intellectual.
Here's a better example of patronizing by experts from the current crisis: "The average person should not wear a mask. Not only it doesn't protect against the virus, but it actually may harm."
What they mean is: it may harm by giving a false sense of certainty. Clearly the average person is too stupid to understand the difference between perfect protection and "not quite perfect, but better than nothing" protection.
In your Iraq war example I don’t recall bureaucratic experts being involved in support of it. General Shinseki famously thought Rumsfeld’s predictions were wrong and Hans Blicks (spelling?) was famously skeptical of Bush administration claims.
I’ll certainly agree that we’ve had crappy political leadership in the U.S. but I won’t agree that bureaucrats have let the nation down in matters of science. Experts get it wrong and consensus expert opinion is sometimes wrong. There will continue to be examples of where consensus expert opinion is wrong.
You can find individual experts who are patronizing and lecturing as you put it. It’s been rare in my experience that consensus expert opinions that aren’t motivated by money, greed, power, or fame are condescending or lecturing.
Twitter is ahead of the newspapers. And it's totally behind the data, with its head in the sand. And everywhere in between. Twitter doesn't give you an answer; it gives you 10,000 answers. Sure, the truth is in there... somewhere. Good luck finding it reliably, though.
Remember, for every guy like you there's someone following QAnon and believing in that schizophrenic nonsense.
At least the NYT is now backtracking but it's too little too late https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-face-...
I won't speak for the rest of the world but the entire United States has effectively shut down thanks to an invisible threat that almost certainly has not affected anyone you know. Yet people are generally calm, considerate, and taking appropriate measures. There are always outliers who will buck that trend, but they are pretty far and few between. Don't get fooled just because the media has highlighted those exceptions as if they are widespread.
Where I'm at people are staying home, closing their businesses, keeping their distance from others, and expressing genuine concern. But they aren't panicked.
There are a few people I'm connected with on social media that insist the measures being taken are excessive. Some are just natural skeptics. Some of them are desperate for attention. A few others believe there are aliens at Area 51.
And they might even be right that we've overreacted - time will tell. But in the meantime, they are staying home and taking the recommended precautions anyway, despite their rhetoric.
Focus on the attention whoring cranks at your own psychological peril. But my experience suggests the actions and behavior of my fellow citizens and residents have, so far, been worthy of praise.
Why we give them any time on the stage is beyond me.
The video of the football manager biting back is perfect[1], and we need to realize this every time a politician or celebrity is asked something of consequence.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/videos/sports/2020/03/05/jurgen-klopp-no...
I've found the internet to be an invaluable source of outstanding information on this virus (dashboards of diagnoses, research on variants, journal articles on origin, updates about potential treatments) and have found most people to relatively reasonable (e.g. frustrated about lack of testing, but nothing resembling conspiracy theories). That said I focus on HN/reddit.
On the other hand, there is the other side of not being reasonable. Yesterday a friend was at the park with her kids. Another mom was on her phone talking to her doctor about her kid's fever and cough. The same kid that she had brought to the public park!
I know people who are planning trips to Hawaii while the kids are on this extended vacation.
There are a lot of people who are not taking this at all seriously.
ETA: check elsewhere in this thread, though there's a good chance it'll be quickly downvoted.
I think this is a good example of an opportunity the population here on HN can exploit, and which many others can't: We can metabolize a deeper-than-average scientific discussion and help convert that into reliable and responsible social discourse. It's just a matter of making the time, of seeking out the expert-level information, and digging in.
This is also more respectable IMO than mainly just being critical of information and influencers. A lot of the so-called influencers are good people who are trying to help out where they can. That's why they're getting attention; the social organism is looking for help right now. The critical viewpoint is not nearly as effective under these circumstances, in part because it shoots down solutions more than it creates or identifies them.
Folks here know about enough science and math to be persuasive when extrapolating, but not enough to truly understand what they're reading, and that's dangerous.
And yesterday most of the Covid threads here were terrible, full of racism, conspiracies, and so on. Another programmer-based forum I frequent has banned Covid topics altogether.
I don't have good solutions here, other than to try to be very careful in choosing only high quality information sources. Getting the word out will be a key part of the response, and I see serious problems in that.
I appreciate the sentiment, but no: HN people and related writing is invariably bad. I realize this will raise hackles.
>It's just a matter of making the time, of seeking out the expert-level information, and digging in.
Racaniello has a two-hour podcast comprised of complicated, expert-level information, and it takes talent to winnow that down into lay language and, more importantly, lay time-constraints. Among people who can barely concern themselves with GitHub READMEs and "wait, but what is it?"[1] site pitches, the HN population does not have a good track record at clarifying plain information, let alone translating between skill levels.
This difficulty and need for understandability is where the goofs described in the article find room to exist. "Just come up with something, and something is better than nothing," the charlatan professes. The problem is that the true expertise gets clouded or even left at the wayside. Irrelevant or confounding perspectives included for no good reason, faulty conclusions, and any other kind of "it was hard before, you simplified it, now it's impossible" derivations of the source material.
Of course, don't get me started on two-hour (and longer) podcasts, itself a format that is extremely hostile to a listener's free time.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/coronavirus-...
with the title "Don't Worry About The Coronavirus. Worry About The Flu." They have since scrubbed or edited much of the content of the article, surely not to hide their completely irresponsible behavior.
edit: If anything, the real story here is the absolute, abject failure of both national and international health organizations and traditional media to provide accurate and up-to-date information on this emerging pandemic and how Twitter and Reddit filled that gap.
My point is, I don't think this is irresponsible. This is something else. This new pandemic is an unprecedented occurrence. Normally, the rational thing to do for to not be scared of a pandemic like this because all previous instances (avian, swine flues, SARS, MERS etc) ended up being ok. So, it seemed like being scared for this disease was irrational, panicky, anxious etc. I really don't disagree with that. Even many experts back then were arguing this will be like them. Turns out we just overfit to our immediate history of pandemics.
This has always been a tail risk situation, something which the media is exceptionally bad at evaluating correctly.
Wise man.
http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/
Q: You aren't an epidemiologist. Why should I listen to you?
You probably shouldn't. I'm a computer scientist and I've spend decades analysing data, but you should talk to a real epidemiologist if you want to understand the underlying causes. Computer scientists do know a lot about exponential growth though.
Q: I'm a journalist. Will you appear on my TV show?
No. You should have a real epidemiologist on your TV show.
Mark Handley, UCL.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk037xDQF2Ya-Hu4vjdEs...
Btw. This is analytics absent Data Science....
I took everything with a grain of salt, but I was alarmed enough about worst case scenarios to start preparing.
Where is it this bad, already?
I’ll take my “influencers” any day, thank you very much!
I've seen the short Lancet piece which speculates about co-morbidities and an ACE-related mechanism, but the text is explicitly very speculative.
Good survey I found: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-report...
But feel free to wait for scientific paper in 18 months!
As near as I can tell, it's based on a) 4 sicker-than-expected youth who were taking NSAIDs b) a difficult-to-disentangle association and c) a plausible but by no means ironclad mechanism.
(And that's assuming the paracetamol thing is even correct.)
This medical influencer issue seems to be a much more common thing: from Goop eggs, to anti-vaxers, to corona-influencers.
The solution seems to be the need to increase scientific knowledge.
Does anyone think there's any possibility that is, in fact, its true origin?
[1] Feel good hit of the summer, Homme, J. et-al (2000)
Still the most useful graph: [1] The Financial Times updates that daily. No projections, just actuals. It's striking how consistently the infection rates track a straight line on a log-linear graph. The US is on the same track as Italy, 12 days behind. So is most of Europe. Only a few Asian countries show signs of control.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06...
I already knew this before I made the subreddit, which I did just because I find this stuff interesting, but honestly right now there is very little appetite from the general public in terms of experimenting with treatments or prophylactic measures that could potentially hurt them. Maybe that will change in a few weeks, but right now there is very little risk of people being harmed by whatever misinformation is currently out there.
As of right now most people don't even believe the virus can hurt them in the first place. It's hard enough just to folks to stay inside.