Working From Home - Impacts of Coronavirus

[rodpp]

IMHO it is unlikely we'll see total lockdowns agains. Countries like the Netherlands and Sweden have shown that keeping people locked inside isn't necessary to prevent an exponential spread of Covid-19.

And again, there never was a total lock down anywhere, as typically circa 40% of people were still out of their home doing essential work.
So yeah, not surprising that you don't necessarily need to lock people in their homes.
I think just general awareness and good hygiene is likely enough to curtail true exponential spread in the general population.

I disagree, please see below.

Australia did very well, according with the available data, and deserves slowly going back to the normal. Looking at new cases per day, it started increasing, reaching a local maximum, and decreased to very low numbers. Now it will start to relaxing and at one point the cases will start to increase again, and more restrictive measures will be necessary.

It's going to be hard to justify another shutdown unless daily cases increase by an order of magnitude here. We are currently oscillating around 20 cases a day, usually as the result of a few particular specific locations like a famous nursing home here where 16% of our deaths nation wide have come from.
It's fascinating the study the data on this stuff, it's rather addictive.

It's a great achievement, excellent number. While that number remains stable, you are good.

Here in the UK we didn't do a lockdown but were asked to be sensible in doing social distancing. The result? We have the highest numbers of deaths in Europe and had to have an enforced lockdown. The simple fact is that people en mass are dicks and will do whatever the hell they want if not forced to do something else. Just look at how quickly the rule of law breaks down when there's a disaster - Katrina, for instance. So whilst lockdowns to combat the virus may not be necessary and we could do it gently and sensibly in theory, they are essential just to get down to even those 40% you mention.

Exactly! Here in Brazil we started well with everyone in home, but we relaxed the social isolating early. Then, even with much better general awareness and good hygiene, see what happened compared with Australia. Please pay attention that Brazil and Australia have much in common, like south hemisphere, weather, dimensions, etc.

[nctnico]

IMHO it is unlikely we'll see total lockdowns agains. Countries like the Netherlands and Sweden have shown that keeping people locked inside isn't necessary to prevent an exponential spread of Covid-19.

And again, there never was a total lock down anywhere, as typically circa 40% of people were still out of their home doing essential work.
So yeah, not surprising that you don't necessarily need to lock people in their homes.

In Belgium, Italy and the UK they have/had pretty strict lock downs where people wheren't allowed outside without a good reason (buying food or going to work). Also the people who are going to the shops or work have to keep a distance. A Belgian friend of mine wasn't even allowed to visit his next door neighbour. That sounds like a total lock down to me but this is getting into semantics.

I think just general awareness and good hygiene is likely enough to curtail true exponential spread in the general population.

I know you strongly wish this to be true (I wish it was true too; nobody is having a good time right now) but realistically it isn't. Transmission through air is also an important way to spread the virus and that isn't stopped by washing your hands, disinfecting door knobs or wearing face masks. My estimate is that until there is a vaccine and / or herd immunity at least social distancing is necessary to slow the spread of Covid19 down to a rate where health care can keep up. Only time will tell what else is necessary but it is going to be more than washing your hands for sure. If extra hygiene was enough then the outbreak would not have spiraled out of control the way it has. As I stated before: at some point extra hygiene doesn't add anything to preventing the spread of 'flu' virusses (Corona, Influeze, Rhino). These are so contagious that only full isolation helps. But that has other problems long term; look at how severely isolated tribes can be affected by the flu because they have no immunity at all.

[Zero999]

That's the inherent problem with restrictions. When they work, it creates the impression that they were not needed. People don't think about the fact that it's because of the restrictions that there is not a high infection rate.

Sure, but how much? How much is due to the lockdown, and how much was simple hygiene, awareness, and staying home when you are sick?
It would be be incredibly foolish (indeed, demonstrably wrong) to say there is no contribution from the later things.
It's easy and logical to assume that the lock down is the thing that did all the wonders, but where is the direct A/B comparison data to actually prove it? (and no, don't compare different countries)

No one knows. It might also be due to less pollution, making people less susceptible to the disease.

Yes public awareness will help to prevent a second wave, even when governments ease restrictions, but my fear is people will become complacent. I don't know about Australia, but I think it will be awhile before we can safely reopen more risky areas of the economy such as hairdressers, nightclubs, pubs and restaurants.

IMHO it is unlikely we'll see total lockdowns agains. Countries like the Netherlands and Sweden have shown that keeping people locked inside isn't necessary to prevent an exponential spread of Covid-19.

And again, there never was a total lock down anywhere, as typically circa 40% of people were still out of their home doing essential work.
So yeah, not surprising that you don't necessarily need to lock people in their homes.
I think just general awareness and good hygiene is likely enough to curtail true exponential spread in the general population.

True, there has never been a lockdown in most countries. Only regions in certain countries with very high death-tolls, such as Wuhan and a place in Italy I can't remember. People were literally sealed in their houses and food was delivered to their doors. Here in the UK only the relatively high risk businesses had to close. Areas such as construction and manufacturing were allowed to continue, even if they weren't essential, although many companies chose to close anyway. Recently many businesses which were never compelled to close have reopened and I think we should wait to see what will happen, before any further easing of restrictions.

I don't think the governments will get the same leeway they did this time when they have to lock down again (and you can bet it's going to happen again, because it's the "new normal"), and governments get drunk on power like that.

I doubt most governments will enforce unnecessary lockdowns, as they tend to cut tax revenues which cost them a lot of money.

Exactly! Here in Brazil we started well with everyone in home, but we relaxed the social isolating early. Then, even with much better general awareness and good hygiene, see what happened compared with Australia. Please pay attention that Brazil and Australia have much in common, like south hemisphere, weather, dimensions, etc.

I wouldn't trust those graphs much, as they're subject to levels of testing.

[rodpp]

Exactly! Here in Brazil we started well with everyone in home, but we relaxed the social isolating early. Then, even with much better general awareness and good hygiene, see what happened compared with Australia. Please pay attention that Brazil and Australia have much in common, like south hemisphere, weather, dimensions, etc.

I wouldn't trust those graphs much, as they're subject to levels of testing.

Me too, you're correct. But it's the only data we have. Other than that, we will be only guessing.

Even with poor data, is better to be data driven than be based only in personal opinions.

[Syntax Error]

https://www.graphene-info.com/graphene-frontiers-gfet-chemical-sensor-explained

...ETC...
Instant testing would allow them to focus more on the aspects of the COVID-19 situation that could make it less of a problem now. (like better, inexpensive diagnosis and treatments, in this case, instant testing that could get people into treatment earlier.)

I checked out Graphene Frontiers and the company seems quiescent. Not much info or activity after 2016. But then they are a tiny research startup.

gFET family detectors could make diagnosis of Covid19  rapid (within 90 minutes?) and in an operator friendly package The consumable parts of a testing rig would be cheap, say $1 each. Maybe a test subject just licks a plastic tab containing the chip?

Could rapid diagnosis be the breakthrough 'killer application' that graphene has long been searching for?

[Zero999]

Exactly! Here in Brazil we started well with everyone in home, but we relaxed the social isolating early. Then, even with much better general awareness and good hygiene, see what happened compared with Australia. Please pay attention that Brazil and Australia have much in common, like south hemisphere, weather, dimensions, etc.

I wouldn't trust those graphs much, as they're subject to levels of testing.

Me too, you're correct. But it's the only data we have. Other than that, we will be only guessing.

Even with poor data, is better to be data driven than be based only in personal opinions.

I disagree.

Poor data is no better than opinion. It also depends on how well informed the opinion is. For example, I'd trust the opinion of a clinician, over data from the governement. if an emergency doctor believes COVID-19 cases are increasing because they're treating more and more people with an unknown repository disease and they can't test everyone, yet the government are reporting  a decrease in COVID-19 cases, then I'd certainly believe the doctor, over the government.

We had an issue in the UK with COVID-19 mortality data, which previously only included deaths in hospitals, not in care homes and the community. What gave the game away was that the total number of deaths was higher, than average for the same point in the year. If your government doesn't properly record deaths, then there may be other sources of more reliable information such as the records of local undertakers.

[rodpp]

Exactly! Here in Brazil we started well with everyone in home, but we relaxed the social isolating early. Then, even with much better general awareness and good hygiene, see what happened compared with Australia. Please pay attention that Brazil and Australia have much in common, like south hemisphere, weather, dimensions, etc.

I wouldn't trust those graphs much, as they're subject to levels of testing.

Me too, you're correct. But it's the only data we have. Other than that, we will be only guessing.

Even with poor data, is better to be data driven than be based only in personal opinions.

I disagree.

Poor data is no better than opinion. It also depends on how well informed the opinion is. For example, I'd trust the opinion of a clinician, over data from the governement. if an emergency doctor believes COVID-19 cases are increasing because they're treating more and more people with an unknown repository disease and they can't test everyone, yet the government are reporting  a decrease in COVID-19 cases, then I'd certainly believe the doctor, over the government.

We had an issue in the UK with COVID-19 mortality data, which previously only included deaths in hospitals, not in care homes and the community. What gave the game away was that the total number of deaths was higher, than average for the same point in the year. If your government doesn't properly record deaths, then there may be other sources of more reliable information such as the records of local undertakers.

Ok, but that clinician opinion in your example is data driven. And if you want a local picture of the situation I believe there is no better source than that.

I heard somewhere that in a pandemia, the better thermometer of the situation is the gravedigger.

That same issue with death data you cited is happening in UK, is happening here in Brazil too.

Unfortunately, if you want a big picture instead of a local one, we only have that poor data.

Although poor, I want to believe that data is above the noise floor.

[nctnico]

Exactly! Here in Brazil we started well with everyone in home, but we relaxed the social isolating early. Then, even with much better general awareness and good hygiene, see what happened compared with Australia. Please pay attention that Brazil and Australia have much in common, like south hemisphere, weather, dimensions, etc.

I wouldn't trust those graphs much, as they're subject to levels of testing.

Me too, you're correct. But it's the only data we have. Other than that, we will be only guessing.

Even with poor data, is better to be data driven than be based only in personal opinions.

I disagree.

Poor data is no better than opinion. It also depends on how well informed the opinion is. For example, I'd trust the opinion of a clinician, over data from the governement. if an emergency doctor believes COVID-19 cases are increasing because they're treating more and more people with an unknown repository disease and they can't test everyone, yet the government are reporting  a decrease in COVID-19 cases, then I'd certainly believe the doctor, over the government.

IMHO it is very important to look whether information is based on the opinion of one person riding a high horse versus a group of scientists which has produced a balanced view on a subject based on facts. In times like these there are lots of doctors and scientists (not necessarily experts in the field) looking to get their 15 minutes of fame.

We had an issue in the UK with COVID-19 mortality data, which previously only included deaths in hospitals, not in care homes and the community. What gave the game away was that the total number of deaths was higher, than average for the same point in the year. If your government doesn't properly record deaths, then there may be other sources of more reliable information such as the records of local undertakers.

That is true. In the Netherlands there are also more people dying compared to long term averages. This data is collected by the government statistics bureau.

[rodpp]

We had an issue in the UK with COVID-19 mortality data, which previously only included deaths in hospitals, not in care homes and the community. What gave the game away was that the total number of deaths was higher, than average for the same point in the year. If your government doesn't properly record deaths, then there may be other sources of more reliable information such as the records of local undertakers.

That is true. In the Netherlands there are also more people dying compared to long term averages. This data is collected by the government statistics bureau.

In the Brazilian city Manaus, state of Amazonas, hit hard by Covid19, the number of deaths in the last days was 108% above the average of the last 4 years in the same period. Of that 108%, 19% was reported as Covid19 and 89% not. Almost certainly we have underreported heavy, like for each 5 Covid19 deaths only 1 was reported.

[cdev]

This is happening all around the US, endless heartbreaking stories where it emerges people who attempted to get medical care were sent home and them dying at home shortly afterward.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/us/coronavirus-florida-medical-examiner-records.html

[bd139]

Doesn't surprise me. Medical care is absolutely shitty even here in UK. And honestly the "clap for the carers" shit is doing my head in after various near misses over the years.

They actually sent my father-in-law home twice with pneumonia. His youngest daughter drove him to the hospital the third time after his kidneys gave out and he died in hospital covid positive. SPO2 was down at 55% when they admitted him 3rd time. I imagine a shit load of people didn't get a second or third go at hospital care either because either they couldn't or didn't feel like they'd be treated seriously. 

I reckon they're going to be finding more isolated dead people still in a couple of years after this has passed.

Edit: just to allay any fears he was diabetic, in his 70s, had major heart problems, smoked like a chimney and had run out of lives several times over already.

[Someone]

That's the inherent problem with restrictions. When they work, it creates the impression that they were not needed. People don't think about the fact that it's because of the restrictions that there is not a high infection rate.

Sure, but how much? How much is due to the lockdown, and how much was simple hygiene, awareness, and staying home when you are sick?
It would be be incredibly foolish (indeed, demonstrably wrong) to say there is no contribution from the later things.
It's easy and logical to assume that the lock down is the thing that did all the wonders, but where is the direct A/B comparison data to actually prove it? (and no, don't compare different countries)

No one knows. It might also be due to less pollution, making people less susceptible to the disease.

Yes public awareness will help to prevent a second wave, even when governments ease restrictions, but my fear is people will become complacent. I don't know about Australia, but I think it will be awhile before we can safely reopen more risky areas of the economy such as hairdressers, nightclubs, pubs and restaurants.

In Melbourne the "shutdown" restrictions haven't been eased but measures of mobility (vehicle,bicycle,pedestrian counters, map service requests etc) have been slowly trending upward. There is noticeable complacency on the basic measures, and anecdotal examples such as people standing in groups at the shops to have a social chat.

How much impact would a request to improve hygiene have been without the simultaneous shutdowns/restrictions. Just asking people to wash their hands and be more careful would likely be a small impact, and have low uptake/compliance.

Trying to simplify the solution as improved hygiene is nonsense, the only strategies seriously considered include isolation/quarantine of suspected and known cases, and then consider social distancing and other measures on top of that.
"Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand"
https://dsprdpub.cc.ic.ac.uk:8443/handle/10044/1/77482
"Impact of COVID-19 in Australia – ensuring the health system can respond"
https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/impact-of-covid-19-in-australia-ensuring-the-health-system-can-respond

[paulca]

The NHS(x) source code is out and there is of course controversy.
https://github.com/nhsx/COVID-19-app-Android-BETA/issues/16

Due to how BLE works on Android the phone asks for location permissions for the app.  Granting this permission allows location tracking by BLE using beacons with predetermined locations, but also allows GPS access, although the app does not directly access the GPS.  If I am reading things correctly.  However it does have remote pathways or JS injection that can reveal your precise device location.

I also note they do not publish the code for the central contact matching server.

[bd139]

BTW the NHSX source code is likely not what appears in the app exactly. They suggest it’s pushed to their own internal branch first. On top of that the guy who runs NHSX is a former Israel diplomat with links to military intelligence companies (NICE Ltd). Nope from me.

[Zero999]

Although poor, I want to believe that data is above the noise floor.

It's more likely the figures just reflect what your government want you to believe.

We had an issue in the UK with COVID-19 mortality data, which previously only included deaths in hospitals, not in care homes and the community. What gave the game away was that the total number of deaths was higher, than average for the same point in the year. If your government doesn't properly record deaths, then there may be other sources of more reliable information such as the records of local undertakers.

That is true. In the Netherlands there are also more people dying compared to long term averages. This data is collected by the government statistics bureau.

In the Brazilian state Manaus, hit hard by Covid19, the number of deaths in the last days was 108% above the average of the last 4 years in the same period. Of that 108%, 19% was reported as Covid19 and 89% not. Almost certainly we have underreported heavy, like for each 5 Covid19 deaths only 1 was reported.

Those figures are more likely.

This is happening all around the US, endless heartbreaking stories where it emerges people who attempted to get medical care were sent home and them dying at home shortly afterward.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/us/coronavirus-florida-medical-examiner-records.html

That's also true, but there will be fewer deaths on the road, so it's not that simple.

[rodpp]

Although poor, I want to believe that data is above the noise floor.

It's more likely the figures just reflect what your government want you to believe.

I was referring to the global data available, used to compares Australia and Brazil numbers, where Australia controlled the transmissions and Brazil not, after a very similar starting.
No my government specific.

[Zero999]

Although poor, I want to believe that data is above the noise floor.

It's more likely the figures just reflect what your government want you to believe.

I was referring to the global data available, used to compares Australia and Brazil numbers, where Australia controlled the transmissions and Brazil not, after a very similar starting.
No my government specific.

The numbers on those graphs are provided by the countries' respective governments.

[rodpp]

Although poor, I want to believe that data is above the noise floor.

It's more likely the figures just reflect what your government want you to believe.

I was referring to the global data available, used to compares Australia and Brazil numbers, where Australia controlled the transmissions and Brazil not, after a very similar starting.
No my government specific.

The numbers on those graphs are provided by the countries' respective governments.

Exactly. And they come from nurses and local doctors, to the cities health administration, then to all states/provinces, and are consolidated by federal government. It's similar in all countries.
If all that data is being manipulated, that are too much people involved. At least in democratic countries where the people have access to hospitals data, cities data and states/provinces data to check the consolidated federal data. One of those that is doing a great job in scrutinize that data is the press, as well as universities, research groups, etc.
I believe more in incompetence to deal with such pandemia, all around the world, as almost none country were prepared to deal with it. Included in this incompetence are inadequate informatics systems, not centralized data systems, fewer test kits than necessary, untrained staff, and so on.

And specifically in Brazil, what the government wants that the population believes is exactly the opposite of the picture shown by the available data.

[thinkfat]

"Never attribute to malice..."

[coppice]

"Never attribute to malice..."

The usual missing half of that line is "that which can be explained by incompetence". However, in the case of statistics gathering its really about laziness. Its really hard to gather good, solid, meaningful information and its not usually a core activity for those gathering it. So, they just get lazy.

[Zero999]

That's the inherent problem with restrictions. When they work, it creates the impression that they were not needed. People don't think about the fact that it's because of the restrictions that there is not a high infection rate.

Sure, but how much? How much is due to the lockdown, and how much was simple hygiene, awareness, and staying home when you are sick?
It would be be incredibly foolish (indeed, demonstrably wrong) to say there is no contribution from the later things.
It's easy and logical to assume that the lock down is the thing that did all the wonders, but where is the direct A/B comparison data to actually prove it? (and no, don't compare different countries)

No one knows. It might also be due to less pollution, making people less susceptible to the disease.

Yes public awareness will help to prevent a second wave, even when governments ease restrictions, but my fear is people will become complacent. I don't know about Australia, but I think it will be awhile before we can safely reopen more risky areas of the economy such as hairdressers, nightclubs, pubs and restaurants.

In Melbourne the "shutdown" restrictions haven't been eased but measures of mobility (vehicle,bicycle,pedestrian counters, map service requests etc) have been slowly trending upward. There is noticeable complacency on the basic measures, and anecdotal examples such as people standing in groups at the shops to have a social chat.

How much impact would a request to improve hygiene have been without the simultaneous shutdowns/restrictions. Just asking people to wash their hands and be more careful would likely be a small impact, and have low uptake/compliance.

Trying to simplify the solution as improved hygiene is nonsense, the only strategies seriously considered include isolation/quarantine of suspected and known cases, and then consider social distancing and other measures on top of that.
"Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand"
https://dsprdpub.cc.ic.ac.uk:8443/handle/10044/1/77482
"Impact of COVID-19 in Australia – ensuring the health system can respond"
https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/impact-of-covid-19-in-australia-ensuring-the-health-system-can-respond

I think a similar thing has happened in the UK, perhaps to a lesser extent, but I think the government should wait and see what happens, before changing anything.

We mustn't forget the obvious: if R > 1 then exponential growth, if R < 1 then linear decay. It's very important not to lose sight of the fact that it's easy to slip and let cases run into the thousands per day, but very difficult to claw back to levels the health system can cope with.

Although poor, I want to believe that data is above the noise floor.

It's more likely the figures just reflect what your government want you to believe.

I was referring to the global data available, used to compares Australia and Brazil numbers, where Australia controlled the transmissions and Brazil not, after a very similar starting.
No my government specific.

The numbers on those graphs are provided by the countries' respective governments.

Exactly. And they come from nurses and local doctors, to the cities health administration, then to all states/provinces, and are consolidated by federal government. It's similar in all countries.
If all that data is being manipulated, that are too much people involved. At least in democratic countries where the people have access to hospitals data, cities data and states/provinces data to check the consolidated federal data. One of those that is doing a great job in scrutinize that data is the press, as well as universities, research groups, etc.
I believe more in incompetence to deal with such pandemia, all around the world, as almost none country were prepared to deal with it. Included in this incompetence are inadequate informatics systems, not centralized data systems, fewer test kits than necessary, untrained staff, and so on.

And specifically in Brazil, what the government wants that the population believes is exactly the opposite of the picture shown by the available data.

I agree with all of that.

I'm not saying the government is directly manipulating the figures, but it's possible it's by indirect means such as: lack of testing, only recording deaths in hospital and of those who have actually tested positive, rather than on clinical signs and symptoms etc. which will all give lower figures than the real ones the government really don't want people to know about. Because testing and recording methods differ considerably between countries, it's impossible to make meaningful comparisons.

The NHS(x) source code is out and there is of course controversy.
https://github.com/nhsx/COVID-19-app-Android-BETA/issues/16

Due to how BLE works on Android the phone asks for location permissions for the app.  Granting this permission allows location tracking by BLE using beacons with predetermined locations, but also allows GPS access, although the app does not directly access the GPS.  If I am reading things correctly.  However it does have remote pathways or JS injection that can reveal your precise device location.

I also note they do not publish the code for the central contact matching server.

People are understandably anxious about gathering data and tracking, but it's the only viable method of controlling it at this point, compared to strict blanket measures restricting people's freedoms. There's no way it will be made compulsory, but I hope enough people will use it for it to be effective.

Will it work without being continuously connected to the Internet? I hope so. I'd like to use it, but my phone is only ever connected to my own Wi-Fi. I don't' bother with a data package, because I'll hardly ever use it.

[cdev]

This situation demands a huge global collaboration to fix this problem - nothing less. This risk may remain forever if we dont rise to the challenge now, cutting huge numbers of peoples lives short.

Here in the US (and in a great many other countries) this epidemic is only beginning in most of the country. There is no large scale testing program in place as there should be. There is no certainty that even if we develop a vaccine that it will work, it may be impossible to eradicate it totally from peoples bodies or - more likely, there will need to be new things learned before we are successful, like happened with HIV, so that the illness cannot remain in the body indefinitely like some other viruses do.

The thing we do need to understand is, we can't go back to living as we did in the recent past right now if we want to be successful. Thats basically giving up, and consigning large numbers of poor people to death, unless we change a great many things, ramp up our health care response. change the way we do a lot of things on a fundamental level.

This starts with the economics. Profiteering off this illness is not okay. What about vaccine cost? We need to vaccine 7.5 billion people in order to eradicate COVID-19. They also should figure out ways to test everybody, rapidly.

 The whole idea that they could award some kind of testing certificate to some people and deem them able to be certified as free of COVID-19 is lacking any scientific basis because we are not certain that illness conveys permanent immunity, that it cant come back, as far as I know the science behind that assumption is unclear.  Also, this illness in its current state often leaves people with permanent health issues. (Because in a subset of cases, it invades the brain.)

 Also the newer "G614" (which has a glycine at position 614) variant, is claimed to have a higher case fatality rate.

We need a better approach, one that doesn't run into this issue of the virus making some tiny change and getting more virulent.

All that said, I think we, the human race could do this, but not without some deep realizations that its not going to happen as long as people think its just going to go away on its own like some irresponsible, inexplicably important people are claiming.

We're way past that stage where it could or would. Its not helpful to pretend its business as usual as some are doing.

Especially, they shouldn't send people into employment situations (crowded workplaces and factories) that put people into danger.  Also, people should be able to wear whatever PPE they want in any work situation. Especially the underinsured and uninsured.

[rodpp]

Although poor, I want to believe that data is above the noise floor.

It's more likely the figures just reflect what your government want you to believe.

I was referring to the global data available, used to compares Australia and Brazil numbers, where Australia controlled the transmissions and Brazil not, after a very similar starting.
No my government specific.

The numbers on those graphs are provided by the countries' respective governments.

Exactly. And they come from nurses and local doctors, to the cities health administration, then to all states/provinces, and are consolidated by federal government. It's similar in all countries.
If all that data is being manipulated, that are too much people involved. At least in democratic countries where the people have access to hospitals data, cities data and states/provinces data to check the consolidated federal data. One of those that is doing a great job in scrutinize that data is the press, as well as universities, research groups, etc.
I believe more in incompetence to deal with such pandemia, all around the world, as almost none country were prepared to deal with it. Included in this incompetence are inadequate informatics systems, not centralized data systems, fewer test kits than necessary, untrained staff, and so on.

And specifically in Brazil, what the government wants that the population believes is exactly the opposite of the picture shown by the available data.

I agree with all of that.

I'm not saying the government is directly manipulating the figures, but it's possible it's by indirect means such as: lack of testing, only recording deaths in hospital and of those who have actually tested positive, rather than on clinical signs and symptoms etc. which will all give lower figures than the real ones the government really don't want people to know about. Because testing and recording methods differ considerably between countries, it's impossible to make meaningful comparisons.

Not meaningful in absolute numbers, but the trend can be observed.

For example in the graph below, where we can see the consequences of the brazillian relaxing isolating measurements while Australia, with a similar scenario, remained adherent to the isolation. Now Australian can afford slowly relaxing and Brazil must go to lockdown:

[cdev]

A lot, perhaps most businesses are based on activities which I suspect may not be popular in a post COVID-19 environment. Like anything that puts people together in large numbers, especially indoors, or many kinds of purchasing that I think people not knowing how their economic prospects are, seem unlikely to pursue.

But who knows, people also desperately crave human contact. What do I know?

I suspect that the risk when you are outdoors is likely to be much lower than indoors, especially if it is sunny and bright, unless you are literally right next to people or touch them.

Also, in some countries families all live together three generations under one roof. That would seem to be a dangerous situation for viral infection because kids are efficient spreaders of this virus it seems, even though they rarely show symptoms. When school is in session they pick it up at school and bring it home. The same applies to large workspaces. All schools and large workplaces should install UVC lamps and at night, or when they are closed, they could flood the area with UVC to disinfect it.

[SiliconWizard]

So is this the end of the world yet?