The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: TheDrake on February 03, 2020, 02:22:07 PM

Title: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on February 03, 2020, 02:22:07 PM
Quote
A new medical facility in the city of Wuhan opened its doors to patients Monday after just 10 days of construction, marking the latest effort by Chinese officials to stymie the rapidly spreading coronavirus that has sickened more than 17,000 people in the country.

Huoshenshan’s swift construction was the product of a round-the-clock effort fueled by 4,000 workers and 1,000 construction machines, according to China Daily. Live-streamed video over the course of construction allowed people to follow its progress online.

Xinhuanet, another state-run news agency, reported that the hospital is staffed by 1,400 medical personnel from the People’s Liberation Army.

According to the Associated Press, the two-story, 600,000-square-foot hospital features doubled-sided cabinets and ventilation systems that essentially quarantine patients, allowing hospital staff to deliver supplies without entering their rooms. The building also contains infrared scanners that can detect if any employees have a fever — one of the coronavirus’s telltale symptoms.

That's pretty impressive. I'm sure it involved unsafe practices, a likelihood that the building won't survive long, and the ventilation system sounds a little dubious. I'm not sure how much testing they could have done, but its better than nothing.

Meanwhile...

Quote
All flights from China are being funneled to 11 U.S. airports.

State and county officials where the 11 airports are located said they received no notice about the quarantine order and are scrambling to figure out where to house people. Hotels, military bases and trailers are among the options, officials said.

I guess there's something to be said in favor of a state-run economy quasi-dictatorship. No, I'm not advocating one in any form. Just saying it works in this scenario.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on February 03, 2020, 03:08:09 PM
We'd probably just "field deploy" some of the mobile hospital facilities DOD has stashed away. Temporary structures for addressing a temporary need.

As to the "quarantine of patients" all you need to achieve that is a negative pressure gradient in the rooms the quarantined patients are in and positive air pressure in the areas immediately adjacent.

Challenge is dealing with all of the "return" air coming from the those rooms. Although intense UV light and some ionizers could likely help address that. Otherwise it's a "simple" matter of you place air supply in the hallways outside the patient rooms, and you put the "air returns" in the room the patient is in. However, you don't recirculate the air from those rooms for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Wayward Son on February 04, 2020, 11:35:19 AM
It sounds like we are woefully unprepared for this outbreak. (https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/31/coronavirus-china-trump-united-states-public-health-emergency-response/)

Quote
In 2018, the Trump administration fired the government’s entire pandemic response chain of command, including the White House management infrastructure. In numerous phone calls and emails with key agencies across the U.S. government, the only consistent response I encountered was distressed confusion. If the United States still has a clear chain of command for pandemic response, the White House urgently needs to clarify what it is—not just for the public but for the government itself, which largely finds itself in the dark...

In the spring of 2018, the White House pushed Congress to cut funding for Obama-era disease security programs, proposing to eliminate $252 million in previously committed resources for rebuilding health systems in Ebola-ravaged Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. Under fire from both sides of the aisle, President Donald Trump dropped the proposal to eliminate Ebola funds a month later. But other White House efforts included reducing $15 billion in national health spending and cutting the global disease-fighting operational budgets of the CDC, NSC, DHS, and HHS. And the government’s $30 million Complex Crises Fund was eliminated.

In May 2018, Trump ordered the NSC’s entire global health security unit shut down, calling for reassignment of Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer and dissolution of his team inside the agency. The month before, then-White House National Security Advisor John Bolton pressured Ziemer’s DHS counterpart, Tom Bossert, to resign along with his team. Neither the NSC nor DHS epidemic teams have been replaced. The global health section of the CDC was so drastically cut in 2018 that much of its staff was laid off and the number of countries it was working in was reduced from 49 to merely 10. Meanwhile, throughout 2018, the U.S. Agency for International Development and its director, Mark Green, came repeatedly under fire from both the White House and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. And though Congress has so far managed to block Trump administration plans to cut the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps by 40 percent, the disease-fighting cadres have steadily eroded as retiring officers go unreplaced.

Public health advocates have been ringing alarm bells to no avail. Klain has been warning for two years that the United States was in grave danger should a pandemic emerge. In 2017 and 2018, the philanthropist billionaire Bill Gates met repeatedly with Bolton and his predecessor, H.R. McMaster, warning that ongoing cuts to the global health disease infrastructure would render the United States vulnerable to, as he put it, the “significant probability of a large and lethal modern-day pandemic occurring in our lifetimes.” And an independent, bipartisan panel formed by the Center for Strategic and International Studies concluded that lack of preparedness was so acute in the Trump administration that the “United States must either pay now and gain protection and security or wait for the next epidemic and pay a much greater price in human and economic costs.”

So Trump was able to dismantle another Obama bureaucracy and save millions of dollars in the budget.  And we have no central coordination for our various local health and safety agencies.  This may not go well.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Fenring on February 04, 2020, 11:41:05 AM
I don't think it would have gone well anyhow. I honestly don't think the U.S. is equipped for a *major* pandemic no matter what the President's policy is. It's one of these WWII type things where when the thing hits you then the massive mobilization begins in a hurry.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on February 04, 2020, 12:51:31 PM
This just in, Trump isn't a globalist. None of that has to do with the ability to react within our borders.

I don't see anything in your quoted article, wayward, that reduces coordination between state, county, or municipal coordination. Unless I missed it.

The $15B "cuts" landed in CHIP, ACA, and other areas only peripherally related to pandemic response.

Doesn't mean I think any of those things are good policy. Just that they aren't that relevant to coronavirus.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on February 08, 2020, 02:17:29 PM
This virus keeps getting headlines and it's just stupid.

When compared to the flu on both communicability (15M flu illnesses reported in the US since just Oct 2019 vs 11 coronavirus) and lethality (flu can be over 150 a day, depending on the year) Coronavirus is a non-issue - something to keep an eye on, but that's about it.

I think we're probably good for another week or so of this and then they'll move on to the next thing.







Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on February 08, 2020, 06:33:13 PM
That's pretty impressive. I'm sure it involved unsafe practices, a likelihood that the building won't survive long, and the ventilation system sounds a little dubious. I'm not sure how much testing they could have done, but its better than nothing.

Not likely a reasonable assumption.  5 years ago the Chinese did a 57 story skyscraper in 19 days,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/apr/30/china-build-57-storey-skyscraper-19-days-timelapse-video

Buildings can be put up safely in extremely short time frames with proper coordination and planning.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on February 08, 2020, 06:38:32 PM
This virus keeps getting headlines and it's just stupid.

When compared to the flu on both communicability (15M flu illnesses reported in the US since just Oct 2019 vs 11 coronavirus) and lethality (flu can be over 150 a day, depending on the year) Coronavirus is a non-issue - something to keep an eye on, but that's about it.

I think we're probably good for another week or so of this and then they'll move on to the next thing.

I think your metrics are wrong - coronavirus isn't spreading rapidly or killing many people today due to the isolation measures that have been taken.

We don't have an accurate gauge of the fatality rate or communicability at this point, see this discussion that goes into depth on fatality rate,

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

Seasonal flu has a death rate of .01% (1 death per 10,000 infected).  Thus far it looks like Coronavirus has a death rate of 2% (200 per 10,000).  For comparison SARS was 9.6% (960 per 10,000).
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on February 08, 2020, 09:11:47 PM
And although the current corona virus is not as lethal as SARS on a case by case basis, it seems to be more highly contagious - there are currently more than 14000 reported confirmed cases of the current outbreak (2-month period) vs only about 8000 for SARS over a 9-month period.  And that is with aggressive worldwide quarantines in place.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 09, 2020, 08:07:08 AM
The problem with tracking this infection is that it’s occurring in a communist country. They’re going to lie about it. It’s just a reflexive thing in communism.

Last night, satellite imagery show a large fire near Wuhan.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on February 09, 2020, 05:44:32 PM
The problem with tracking this infection is that it’s occurring in a communist country. They’re going to lie about it. It’s just a reflexive thing in communism.

Just ask anybody under 30, we need more communism in the USA.  8)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on February 09, 2020, 08:13:14 PM
There used to be a time when those in the USA could mock other countries for lying transparently.  Those days are long gone.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 10, 2020, 07:42:53 AM
Yeah, Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi sure took us down the road on that.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on February 10, 2020, 01:39:39 PM
This virus keeps getting headlines and it's just stupid.

When compared to the flu on both communicability (15M flu illnesses reported in the US since just Oct 2019 vs 11 coronavirus) and lethality (flu can be over 150 a day, depending on the year) Coronavirus is a non-issue - something to keep an eye on, but that's about it.

I think we're probably good for another week or so of this and then they'll move on to the next thing.

I think your metrics are wrong - coronavirus isn't spreading rapidly or killing many people today due to the isolation measures that have been taken.

We don't have an accurate gauge of the fatality rate or communicability at this point, see this discussion that goes into depth on fatality rate,

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

Seasonal flu has a death rate of .01% (1 death per 10,000 infected).  Thus far it looks like Coronavirus has a death rate of 2% (200 per 10,000).  For comparison SARS was 9.6% (960 per 10,000).

First off, the death rate for flu varies year to year but seems to hover around 1 per 1000, i.e .1%. Both the number and the percentage you present above are an order of magnitude off - your own link clearly shows this.

You also seem to be comparing historically recorded US flu data, which in general is trustworthy, with estimate/model data coming from China's NHC, which is... less so.

Media hype aside, I think the more interesting story here is speculation that this is an escaped virus from China's bio weapons program. Based on China's ambassador's answer to that direct question over the weekend, I'm leaning towards that being a distinct possibility.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on February 10, 2020, 02:04:56 PM
Scott, don't know where your numbers are coming from but....

influenza mortality (https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/influenza-and-pneumonia-death-rate/?currentTimeframe=0&selectedRows=%7B%22wrapups%22:%7B%22united-states%22:%7B%7D%7D%7D&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D)

14.3 per 100,000 = .014%

If they are coming from the website linked, all I can find them saying is less than 1 per 1000, not equal to.

As the the speculation about a weapons program, it's not exactly Captain Trips, is it? All of the experts have dismissed that anything about the virus looks engineered or intentional.

Quote
Elsa Kania, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said that while Chinese officials had expressed public interest in the potential weaponization of biotechnology, a coronavirus would not be a useful weapon.

“Hypothetically, a bioweapon would be designed to be highly targeted in its effects, whereas since its outbreak the coronavirus is already on track to become widespread in China and worldwide,” she said.

Vipin Narang, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in a message on Twitter that a good bioweapon “in theory has high lethality but low, not [high], communicability” and that spreading such ideas would be “incredibly irresponsible.”
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Seriati on February 10, 2020, 02:44:53 PM
TheDrake, the difference is 1 in 1000 deaths (on average) of those infected, and what you cited based on the population without regard to infection (in the US).  Both numbers are - very roughly - correct.  Sometimes the mortality is higher, a few years back it was 3-4 in 1000, but the infection rate may or not be higher in the population as a whole.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on February 10, 2020, 03:18:28 PM
Okay, I get it. Thanks.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on February 10, 2020, 03:58:45 PM
Quote
Sometimes the mortality is higher, a few years back it was 3-4 in 1000, but the infection rate may or not be higher in the population as a whole.

3-4 mortality per 1000? ?

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

34,157 deaths/35,520,883 symptomatic infections is about 1 in 10,000 - .01% mortality.  The past 10 years give similar numbers.  The 1 in 1000 is off by two orders of magnitude.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on February 10, 2020, 04:10:42 PM
The other thing that will play havoc with the numbers involving the flu is the matter that there is a vaccine that is made widely available.

There is no vaccine for the coronavirus at this time, which means there is no herd immunity in play, and you're dealing with everything else on top of that.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on February 10, 2020, 04:51:24 PM
TheDeamon,

Quote
The other thing that will play havoc with the numbers involving the flu is the matter that there is a vaccine that is made widely available.

There is no vaccine for the coronavirus at this time, which means there is no herd immunity in play, and you're dealing with everything else on top of that.

2004 and 2014 vaccines weren't very effective against the influenza strains for those years, and show similar mortality rates.  Herd immunity is at around 93-94%; flu vaccination rates are in the 30-40% range, so herd immunity really isn't a factor.  The death rate for elderly due to vaccination is probably a bit lower, but likely doesn't move the numbers too much.

If you want to calculate it out - the CDC provides averted burden due to vaccination,

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-burden-averted-est.html

4,400,000 averted infections; 3,500 averted deaths.

(34,157+3,500)/(35,520,883 + 4,400,000) = .00094 so essentially the same .01% mortality I calculated above.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on February 10, 2020, 04:57:04 PM
34,157 deaths/35,520,883 symptomatic infections is about 1 in 10,000 - .01% mortality.  The past 10 years give similar numbers.  The 1 in 1000 is off by two orders of magnitude.

Maybe the error is within the link you posted (copy/pasted below)?

"Comparison with other viruses
For comparison, the case fatality rate with seasonal flu in the United Stats is less than 0.1% (1 death per every 1,000 cases)."

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Seriati on February 10, 2020, 05:43:35 PM
Quote
Sometimes the mortality is higher, a few years back it was 3-4 in 1000, but the infection rate may or not be higher in the population as a whole.

3-4 mortality per 1000? ?

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

34,157 deaths/35,520,883 symptomatic infections is about 1 in 10,000 - .01% mortality.  The past 10 years give similar numbers.  The 1 in 1000 is off by two orders of magnitude.

LR, I'm sorry, can you check your math.  I looks like you divided 34 thousand by 35 million and got 1 in 10,000. 

Millions are literally 3 zeros bigger than thousands.  Not four zeros.

You can just move the decimal point 3 places to see were talking about 34 deaths, for every 35,000 people, or 3.4 deaths for every 3,500 people and divide that roughly by 3.5 to see almost 1 death for every thousand people.  Unless I'm missing something, in which case I will feel much shame.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 10, 2020, 05:51:04 PM
I don't want to dive head first down a rabbit hole regarding the Corona virus - bio-weapons lab connection... but "experts have dismissed that anything about the virus looks engineered or intentional" didn't quite cut it as far as putting the fears to rest.

I can agree with the professor that "a good bioweapon “in theory has high lethality but low, not [high], communicability”.

I don't think the idea here is that this virus was the bioweapon though. The idea would be that this was just something they were doing research on and maybe not even to weaponize but to help with developing vaccines for this and other viruses. The idea isn't that China purposefully let it loose either but that it escaped on its own despite their best intentions never to let that happen.

I had thought the argument against the virus looking engineered would have been based on its genetic structure which has been analyzed in detail and determined to have conformed with what could be expected to naturally occur in nature but if the argument is just because of the low lethality and high communicability that is unpersuasive since this wouldn't be a purposeful bioweapon but just a product of legitimate research that would span a wide range of different viruses and this just happened to be the one that got out.

Of course I have no idea if that's the case or not. It could be completely natural.

As for spreading such ideas being  “incredibly irresponsible", well it's just an idea. It seems like it would be important for those looking for a vaccine, treatments, and effective quarantines to understand everything there is to understand about the virus and that would include whether it was completely natural or a product of research.

Speaking of containment, here is something else to think about. Just interesting reading. Hopefully it doesn't represent an uncontainable infection vector.

https://medium.com/science-and-innovation/trillions-upon-trillions-of-viruses-fall-from-the-sky-each-day-b2dcc3c13219

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180206090650.htm

"Every day, more than 800 million viruses are deposited per square metre above the planetary boundary layer -- that's 25 viruses for each person in Canada," said University of British Columbia virologist Curtis Suttle, one of the senior authors of a paper in the International Society for Microbial Ecology Journal that outlines the findings.

"Roughly 20 years ago we began finding genetically similar viruses occurring in very different environments around the globe," says Suttle. "This preponderance of long-residence viruses travelling the atmosphere likely explains why -- it's quite conceivable to have a virus swept up into the atmosphere on one continent and deposited on another."

For purposes of full disclosure, I like disaster movies and novels both geologic as well as infection based. The Last Ship. The Walking Dead. The Day After Tomorrow. All of that. So I understand I have a predisposition for what may be wild speculation. It's just interesting.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 10, 2020, 07:32:38 PM
More likely of course is that it's just another virus jumping out from the wet markets.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/men-represent-majority-coronavirus-cases-230600596.html

"SARS was also a coronavirus that jumped from animals to people in wet markets. It shares about 80% of its genome with the novel coronavirus, and like the current outbreak, it infected more men than women."
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on February 10, 2020, 08:31:47 PM
Quote
Sometimes the mortality is higher, a few years back it was 3-4 in 1000, but the infection rate may or not be higher in the population as a whole.

3-4 mortality per 1000? ?

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

34,157 deaths/35,520,883 symptomatic infections is about 1 in 10,000 - .01% mortality.  The past 10 years give similar numbers.  The 1 in 1000 is off by two orders of magnitude.

LR, I'm sorry, can you check your math.  I looks like you divided 34 thousand by 35 million and got 1 in 10,000. 

Millions are literally 3 zeros bigger than thousands.  Not four zeros.

You can just move the decimal point 3 places to see were talking about 34 deaths, for every 35,000 people, or 3.4 deaths for every 3,500 people and divide that roughly by 3.5 to see almost 1 death for every thousand people.  Unless I'm missing something, in which case I will feel much shame.

I was going to say something similar, probably with a bit of snark but then thought sh$t, what if I've suddenly forgot how to math...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on February 11, 2020, 11:53:36 AM
LR, I'm sorry, can you check your math.  I looks like you divided 34 thousand by 35 million and got 1 in 10,000. 

Looks like I did indeed do a rounding error - doh!  Part of why I usually post my math and link my sources, just in case I miscalculate so others can check it.

So 1 in 1,000.  Thanks for correcting my error, hate it when I do that.

It looks like I misquoted the seasonal flu death rate as 1 in 10,000 when I first posted and it said 1 in 1000 also.  My bad.  (Hmm the table shows Swine Flu as .02% -and this source says the same thing https://www.reuters.com/article/us-flu-h1n1-pandemic/swine-flu-infected-1-in-5-death-rate-low-study-shows-idUSBRE90O0T720130125 - it looks like the Swine Flu is based on sampling of blood tests for antibodies; but the 1 in 1000 is based on symptomatic individuals - so they aren't an apples to apples comparison).

So .1% which is 20 times less dangerous than coronavirus (2%) and almost 98 (9.8%) times less dangerous than SARS on a 'deaths per symptomatic individual' rate.

Of course we also need to know how many people who are infected become sympotmatic vs only develop antibodies and fight off the infection before becoming symptomatic - and those rates could differ quite a bit.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 11, 2020, 02:07:02 PM
Reports are coming out that the Chinese government is welding people into their homes, sealing them in. Can that be accurate? Seems insane.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 14, 2020, 07:37:01 AM
So the guys that got those reports out, they’re gone.

Quote
HONG KONG — The beige van squatted outside of a Wuhan hospital, its side and back doors ajar. Fang Bin, a local clothing salesman, peered inside as he walked past. He groaned: “So many dead.” He counted five, six, seven, eight body bags. “This is too many.”

That moment, in a 40-minute video about the coronavirus outbreak that has devastated China, propelled Mr. Fang to internet fame. Then, less than two weeks later, he disappeared.

Days earlier, another prominent video blogger in Wuhan, Chen Qiushi, had also gone missing. Mr. Chen’s friends and family said they believed he had been forcibly quarantined.

Before their disappearances, Mr. Fang and Mr. Chen had recorded dozens of videos from Wuhan, streaming unfiltered and often heartbreaking images from the heart of the outbreak. Long lines outside hospitals. Feeble patients. Agonized relatives.

Weird, I wonder why?

Quote
The footage would have been striking anywhere. But it was especially so coming from inside China, where even mild criticism of the authorities is quickly scrubbed from the online record, and those responsible for it often punished.

What? Communists hiding inconvenient information? Punishing anyone that says anything critical of the government? I bet some of you are shocked!

Quote
China’s leader, Xi Jinping, said last month that officials needed to “strengthen the guidance of public opinion.

But Bernie would never do that! He’d never do what literally every other socialist or communist government has done! This time, it’s different.

Meanwhile:
Quote
The head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the new coronavirus, which has killed almost 1,400 people and is still spreading in China, could be around for at least another year. With the Chinese government reporting 121 more deaths and more than 5,000 new cases Thursday alone, the illness dubbed COVID-19 didn't even appear to have peaked.

Chinese health officials in the epicenter province of Hubei changed the way they officially diagnosed the disease this week, leading early Thursday to a sudden, alarming jump of about 14,000 new cases recorded in the region.

My guess is you could add a zero to those numbers and be closer to the reality of the situation.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 14, 2020, 07:44:03 AM
Back in the USA

Quote
An American biotech company says it created a coronavirus vaccine three hours after getting access to the virus' genetic sequence on Jan. 9, and now scientists are racing to get the vaccine on the market in record time.

"We have an algorithm which we designed, and we put the DNA sequence into our algorithm and came up with the vaccine in that short amount of time," Inovio's research and development director Dr. Trevor Smith told KVUE.

It’ll be ready for use by summer!

Buried all the way down in the very last paragraph:

Quote
Another U.S. company, Maryland-based Novavax, is aiming to make a coronavirus vaccine in as little as three months, although such vaccines can take years to develop.

Who’s gonna be first to inject that 3 hour vaccine into their body? I suspect a few hundred million Chinese will get this vaccine before summer.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on February 24, 2020, 11:37:44 AM
Reports of Corona virus outbreaks in Italy, South Korea, and Iran. Should this go the route of the 1918 Flu pandemic it would be bad but not civilization ending. The ease of infection with the seemingly long incubation period makes this thing ending up global seemingly more likely.

Realistic worst case scenario (IMO) based on rough back of the envelope calculations would put maximum spread of infection at 30-40% of the global population with a death rate around 1% (largely people who are already sick or elderly in some way). So around 200,000,000 people dead worldwide.

For reference 3-15% of the US population gets the flu annually, with ~0.1% dying. I set the worst case spread at approximately 2x that because of the lack of an effective vaccine (currently).

Also for reference the 1918 flu pandemic infected 33% of the world population and had a death rate of about 10%.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Seriati on February 24, 2020, 01:31:18 PM
Yossarian22c, interesting parallel.  Just had a fascinating read on the 1918 Flu.  A number of conditions that allowed the 1918 pandemic to spread and be so deadly are no longer present.  They had no anti-biotics, so a lot of the deaths were from secondary infections.  They really didn't understand a lot of how the body works, not that our knowledge is great but it's way past theirs.  They were in the midst of WWI and apparently trench warfare flipped the typical response to the illness (typically, very sick people stay home and may die, while less sick people continue working, which causes less deadly strains to supplant the more deadly, in the trenches the less sick people stayed in the trenches, but the more sick were shipped on crowded trains to crowded hospitals and areas that troops were constantly deploying through).

One thing that did cause me concern is that the current virus has such a long incubation time where it can effect, that means that even those infected with the deadly version will be interacting with a large number of people before they get sick enough to stay home.  That would interfere with the natural process that selects for the milder version.   
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on February 24, 2020, 02:13:32 PM
Yossarian22c, interesting parallel.  Just had a fascinating read on the 1918 Flu.  A number of conditions that allowed the 1918 pandemic to spread and be so deadly are no longer present.  They had no anti-biotics, so a lot of the deaths were from secondary infections. 

Death rates will probably hold steady in the 1-2% range for countries with adequate medical care, so far below the 10% rate of 1918. The real disasters would occur if this got into places like Syria or refugee camps were the level of medical care is going to be lower and impeded by war.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on February 24, 2020, 03:20:30 PM
Writing from Italy, not in the locked zone but pretty near, right now here there have been 229 confirmed cases and 7 deaths, all of them over 80 and suffering from pre-existing conditions.

Schools have been closed in about a third of Italy, and all manifestations canceled (we were about to finish the carnival celebrations right now so there were plenty).

In Lombardy, around Milan, also all cinemas, discos, pubs, churches and all similar activities have been closed.

People are quite calm for now, there have been some limited stockpiling, but apart for masks and hand sanitizers the food supplies are still fine, supermarkets are open and supplied if a bit bare, and no big queues.

The thing that could get ugly quickly is the economy: apart for the momentary slump of having to stop production because workers have to stay in their homes and parts from China and other countries stop arriving, and ofc tourism, travel etc., around here a disproportionate part of the economy is built around small specialized production companies.

This kind of companies always work quite on the razor blade with their financials: even with state help, if the situation goes on too much many of them could go down or at least seriously suffer.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on February 24, 2020, 04:00:21 PM

Death rates will probably hold steady in the 1-2% range for countries with adequate medical care, so far below the 10% rate of 1918. The real disasters would occur if this got into places like Syria or refugee camps were the level of medical care is going to be lower and impeded by war.

I understand where people are getting the 1-2% mortality rate, but I think it's a myopic number.   

According to the info coming out from the Chinese CDC, the mortality rate per age group is as follows:

0-9            0
10-19       0.2
20-29       0.2
30-39       0.2
40-49       0.4
50-59       1.3
60-69        3.6
70-79        8
>79           14.8

NCOVID19 is mostly killing people above the age of 60.  81% of the fatalities from China are from those aged 60 or more.  Hypertension and CVD are major co morbidity factors. 

COVID19 is killing people with pneumonia.  So it's killing those people who are already vulnerable to pneumonia.  14.6% of cases among healthcare workers were classified as severe or critical.  COVID19's transmissiblity, or basic reproduction number, is from 1.5 to 3.5, which is roughly the same as the Spanish Flu, but without the horrible mortality rate. 

In the United States, the elderly, especially in nursing homes, will be most vulnerable.  But as you already stated, we have much better medicine than we did in 1918, and the cause of mortality (pneumonia) is easier to take care of. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on February 24, 2020, 04:04:40 PM
Realistic worst case scenario (IMO) based on rough back of the envelope calculations would put maximum spread of infection at 30-40% of the global population with a death rate around 1% (largely people who are already sick or elderly in some way). So around 200,000,000 people dead worldwide.

For reference 3-15% of the US population gets the flu annually, with ~0.1% dying. I set the worst case spread at approximately 2x that because of the lack of an effective vaccine (currently).

Also for reference the 1918 flu pandemic infected 33% of the world population and had a death rate of about 10%.

Census.gov estimates 7.6 Biliion people(rounded down) on the planet.

40% of that gives us 3.04 Billion people infected.

1% of that gives you 30.4 Million dead, not 200 Million.

Even killing 1% of the total world population would "only" result in 76 Million dead. So your 200 Million number is off by rather a lot.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Seriati on February 24, 2020, 04:11:32 PM
Thanks Grant I hadn't seen those numbers and they are interesting, but I just don't trust anything reported by China.  Nor will I trust those reported out of the Middle East or third world countries.  I don't believe they have the medical care, testing facilities or culture to accurately track total infections, even with their death counts I'd expect them to be over inflated (by miscounting other causes of death) or under reported (either because or repression of information - China, or inability - most of the third world, where cases may not even come to a medical center).

The biggest risks are similar to the 1918 breakout, where conditions in the first world eliminate the infection in the first instance (meaning we don't catch the infection in great enough numbers to cause it to select for a less deadly strain) and one or more of the third world countries are in conditions that cause or allow the deadly strain to become predominant before it reinfects the rest of the world.  Not sure on this virus if previous infection provides immunity or just resistance.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on February 24, 2020, 04:33:10 PM
Thanks Grant I hadn't seen those numbers and they are interesting, but I just don't trust anything reported by China. 

Of course you don't.  What is your preferred source of information? 

Quote
I don't believe they have the medical care, testing facilities or culture to accurately track total infections

Which one of these is China guilty of? 

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Seriati on February 24, 2020, 04:51:34 PM
Depends on what's being reported.  Unfortunately for an outbreak, it's often the after action reports. 

I was mostly referring to China as having a culture of information repression (on the statistics).  But I do think that translates fairly directly into not having a culture or medical care to accurately track total infections, as well as more substantively to making bad decisions on medical care overall.  Initially, they suppressed information internally (they may still be doing so), at the level of reporting to the central government and also in reporting to the people as a whole.  That  information is necessary to formulate an effective response by the government, but also very significantly by their citizens.   If transmission can be significantly retarded with basic hygiene measures, that suppression of info has killed people.

There's pretty open speculation that they deliberately exposed medical staff that were trying to communicate information to the virus to permanently shut them down, they certainly silenced those voices.

At the point where the infection is already spreading, a lot of people start looking at the totalitarian measures a country such as China can impose on their citizens and see an "effective" way to stop the spread of a pandemic.  But I think that reflects a misunderstanding of what's going on, top down societies will always choose to cut off a branch or purge some "regrettable losses" to save the whole.  How can they not, very few people matter to them as individuals.  And if we presume it's a do or die that may be the only way to save everyone else.

But if it's not do or die, then that's a cynical decision that imposes massive costs on the few that may have been avoidable.  The west will almost certainly use far less draconian responses, and will almost certainly achieve better survival rates (hope those aren't famous last words).  But it may mean we end up with higher infection rates.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on February 25, 2020, 08:29:45 AM
Census.gov estimates 7.6 Biliion people(rounded down) on the planet.

40% of that gives us 3.04 Billion people infected.

1% of that gives you 30.4 Million dead, not 200 Million.

Even killing 1% of the total world population would "only" result in 76 Million dead. So your 200 Million number is off by rather a lot.

Derp you're right. I was off by an order of magnitude. I meant to say around 20 million. And as other people have reiterated the deaths fall predominately among the elderly and others with underlying conditions that leave them vulnerable.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 26, 2020, 02:43:14 AM
I'm just curious how bad people think this will get.

The CDC is talking about closing down schools and teleschooling. To my knowledge that has never happened before.

I know we're already supposed to have enough food to last a while but to be honest I probably don't. I'm wondering if I should get some while the getting is good.

It looks like water, tap water anyway, and electricity aren't going to be issues and worst case maybe self-quarantining for one to three months might do it to give the vaccine time to get made and distributed. Maybe get some food and a water filter and that should about do it. And maybe nothing will happen either but I'm just wondering if anyone else is prepping a little bit, or not. Over-reaction or prudence at this point?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on February 26, 2020, 06:55:26 AM
There are some difference in opinions between CDC and WHO from what I hear: WHO reccomends a more aggressive early containment strategy, while CDC seems to prefer softer social distancing strategies.
My country is adopting WHO strategies, and while likely they will not be sufficient as everybody seems to agree the virus will be with us till at least this summer, for the moment they are working: only very few cases are out of the lock-down hot-spots (they are about a dozen towns for a total population of about 50k people, to give an idea).
People that try to enter or leave the lock-down zones without good reasons and arranging it with the health department would be stopped and fined, but people at least for now are collaborating quite willingly in a disciplined way.

Anyway, in the meantime, all north of Italy schools are closed, and we are starting to deploy distance-learning tools.

In the region around the lock down zones (Lombardy and the Venetian, the most industrialized regions of Italy), all people-gathering activities have been closed, from pubs and restaurants to cinema to gyms to churches, but in the rest of Italy they are not yet, although attendances are way down.

Monday there were some limited supermarket runs, people wanted to be sure to have some "just in case" reserves of the fundamentals, but the only consequence were some bare shelves: food and resource distribution is going on regularly.
Some of the usual jackals tried to profit from the sudden scarcity of face masks and hand sanitizers with huge price gouging, but it did not last much, pharmacies are already getting fresh batches.

Public transport is still working everywhere, there are some delays as long distance trains get stopped for checks when entering or leaving the dangerous zones.

The companies in the lock-down zone have been temporarily closed, but outside they are only encouraged to shift any worker they can do telecommuting.
Syndicates and emergency government committees are studying all kinds of incentives and facilitations to help transitioning as many people possible to this form of work, and made a decree that ensure no liabilities for companies or workers for the measures taken in the meantime in this direction.
With my own company, we decided to take the chance to triage our "emergency response plan" to ensure the company functioning in case of disruption of our workplace. Its working well, and right now only few employees are working from the office, all the rests moved to distance work.

Right now, to give some numbers from a western country, we have tested around 5000 symptomatic or at risk people, finding a total 374 positive cases, and 12 deaths, all of over 60 (mostly 80+) and suffering from pre-existing conditions.
The official percentages told by WHO doctors on official public sources here are that 80% of infected are barely symptomatic, 15% develop serious symptoms, 5% develop life threatening symptoms, and a still unclear percentage of these if vulnerable for other reasons may die.

Of course in the media chaos there are also doctors that say that's barely more serious than normal flu and everybody is being too overdramatic and we should think of the economy, and pundits that predict the end of the nation if we don't kick out all immigrants immediately and close all our borders.

But most of the chaos (for the moment) is in the media: from what I can see and what I can infer reading between the attempts of the media to dramatize things, people seems to be taking things calmly and rationally, even more so than before these things happened.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on February 26, 2020, 10:51:09 AM
I'm just curious how bad people think this will get.

Worst case scenario is kinda like what you are describing.  But a lot has to do with where you live.  Population density and public transportation is going to be a big factor.  Schools get shut down for 2-3 weeks.  I don't know about tele-education.  Not everybody has that capability.  Not everybody has someone at home to watch the kids.  Shutting down business for 2 weeks in major metropolitan areas.  Not sure how that is going to work either, since so many live paycheck to paycheck.  They can't afford to lose 2-3 weeks of work.

It's more likely that in America we just power through the thing.  That will mean plenty of people getting sick and having to stay home anyways, but at least then they get sick pay.  Some cases will get serious and develop into pneumonia.  As I mentioned before, it will hit the elderly the hardest.  There will be more deaths in nursing homes. 

Roughly 2.5 million Americans die every year.  My guess is that could double with a bad epidemic. 

It wouldn't be a bad idea to have 2-3 weeks of emergency rations.  Canned foods.  Powdered formula for infants.  Hey, get some N95 masks.  But I think that the worse case scenario is not extremely likely except for places like New York City, some areas of Los Angeles.  Like I said, places with high density and public transportation might get shut down. 

Of course, it will inordinately effect those in the poorest and most crowded areas and the elderly, with minimal access to healthcare.  So look for that new cycle to begin soon.  It may or not be connected to global warming by pundits. 

The best case scenario is that everybody is overreacting and that we're never even going to notice when coronavirus hits the US.  It's already dying down in China.  We're talking about the most populous and densest population on earth, and the epidemic lasted only a few months.  We'll probably get more epidemics in other countries, and then 2-3 months later, it will be over.  Social distancing, handwashing, masks, and some local quarantine have done the trick there in my opinion. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on February 26, 2020, 12:27:50 PM
Actually masks don't do f all for covid-19 in a public setting. Therefore CDC does not recommend it. Crazed people buying masks are putting them in scarce supply for the health workers who actually need them.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on February 26, 2020, 12:39:52 PM
Actually masks don't do f all for covid-19 in a public setting. Therefore CDC does not recommend it. Crazed people buying masks are putting them in scarce supply for the health workers who actually need them.

Are you sure of that? 

I said:

Quote
Hey, get some N95 masks.


$1000 says N95 masks are effective against COVID 19.  Eagerly awaiting your response. 

Love,

Grant
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on February 26, 2020, 01:06:48 PM
Oh, they're effective. Just not useful for the average person. It decreases your chance of contracting the disease by some fraction of a percent at best.

Quote
“The main point of the mask is to keep someone who is infected with the virus from spreading it to others,” Brewer said.

CDC agrees, writing on its website succinctly: “CDC does not recommend that people who are well wear a face mask to protect themselves from respiratory diseases.”

Do face masks work? An expert explains.

Medical face masks are often used during flu season or a virus outbreak. Demand for masks has skyrocketed amid the coronavirus outbreak. (Elyse Samuels/The Washington Post)

Common surgical masks block the droplets coming out of a sick person from getting into the air, but they are not tight enough to prevent what’s already in the air from getting in.

There are specialized masks — known as N95 masks because they filter out 95 percent of airborne particles — that are more effective, and some online retailers are sold out of them. But there’s a problem: The masks are difficult to use without training. They must be fitted and tested to work properly.

“If you just buy them at CVS, you’re not going to do all that,” Brewer said. “You’re not going to get it fit-tested, and you’re not going to be wearing it properly, so all you’ve done is spend a lot of money on a very fancy face mask.”
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 26, 2020, 03:43:09 PM
What if you put a saniwipe over your N95 mask? You'd have to replace it as it dried out but a couple of them should give you time to get through the supermarket and you use some more to wipe down all the stuff you buy or spray it and hopefully that would do it.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on February 26, 2020, 03:53:36 PM
What if you put a saniwipe over your N95 mask? You'd have to replace it as it dried out but a couple of them should give you time to get through the supermarket and you use some more to wipe down all the stuff you buy or spray it and hopefully that would do it.

No.  Use the N95 mask properly and use alcohol hand sanitizer religiously.  Like a religious fanatic.  Minimize contact.  No handshakes.  Minimize touching surfaces.  Do not put anything over the N95 that could make breathing through it more difficult. I wouldn't even wear the N95 unless I was on public transportation or someplace close to lots of people.  Jupiter's Rooster, COVID19 isn't even airborne like smallpox or measles.  It's water droplets.  Yeah, it's contagious.  If you shake hands with someone who has it, or they sneeze or cough within 6 ft of you, or you touch what they touch, you can get it.  But it's not nearly as contagious as smallpox and measels, and the human race survived those for thousands of years. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on February 26, 2020, 03:59:10 PM
Quote
Faust already has developed a workaround. If coronavirus arrives, Oakland County personnel will put surgical masks over N95s, protecting the underlying mask somewhat so it can be used again.

NYU is already working to conserve “personal protective equipment” — full-body “moon suits,” masks, face shields and other gear — for a shortage that Phillips considers inevitable. Many masks used in U.S. hospitals come from Hubei province in China, where the outbreak began. And when production in China resumes, equipment surely will be reserved for use in that country, he said. About 65 percent of N95 respirators are manufactured outside the continental United States, in China and Mexico, according to HHS data.

If you are using up an N95 mask to buy oranges, you're taking it away from a doctor, nurse, or janitor in a hospital. Don't. If you are immune compromised, I suggest you not go out in public.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 26, 2020, 04:17:36 PM
I hadn't known they were in short supply. Well that's something new.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on February 26, 2020, 04:22:10 PM

If you are using up an N95 mask to buy oranges, you're taking it away from a doctor, nurse, or janitor in a hospital. Don't. If you are immune compromised, I suggest you not go out in public.

There is a temporary shortage because everybody in the world is *censored*ting their pants at exactly the same time.  Production has increased, and demand will go down after every swinging richard has a box.  The hospitals and healthcare providers will get theirs first from providers.  If you can get a box, you're not taking away from healthcare providers.  But I wouldn't spend $400 on a box from ebay.   COVID 19 just isn't that serious.   
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on February 26, 2020, 04:42:40 PM
So you don't think when a hospital runs out, they'll turn to the retail market? Interesting.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on February 26, 2020, 05:00:33 PM
So you don't think when a hospital runs out, they'll turn to the retail market? Interesting.

I don't think there will be a great deal of supply in the retail market until the hospitals and health providers get what they want. 

Look.  We always have enough N95s for regular flu season in the US.  That demand may be doubled, but it will not fall at the exact same time.  The problem is that right now is also the height of the flu season.  In one month the flu season will be close to over.   Production will continue to flow into the hospitals to maintain a 4 week supply.  The increased demand is from increased use in some very small areas, and from increase demand from regular joes.  Production is increasing.  Manufacturing can be ramped up.  It will cost, but if there is anything that those evil capitalists are good at, it is meeting demand.  Honeywell and 3M are not going to just sit around. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on February 28, 2020, 11:59:33 AM
Saw this tweeted this morning:

How not to die during the coronavirus pandemic:

1. Wear a seatbelt
2. Eat well and exercise
3. DO NOT look at your 401K
4. Get a flu shot
5. Wash your hands
6. Don’t eat bats
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on February 28, 2020, 12:39:15 PM
Quote
3. DO NOT look at your 401K

Yeah.  At some point it would be interesting to think about the lasting economic effect of COVID19.  I know the stock market crash and Chattegrabber's stock buying advice has been brought up, but I see that as a discussion generally focused on a market correction.  I'm talking lasting economic effects to the tune of economic recession or depression. 

I think we can fairly say that it looks like 2020 is not going to be a boom year economically worldwide.  From what I gather, so much of supply is tied up in China, and they've locked down. 

A lot depends on how bad things really get, which is general speculation, but even with best case scenarios, I think we may be looking at economic slowdown. 

To ponder:

1.  What will the effects be domestically in the US?  Other than the major correction/crash that we are seeing.  As it has been pointed out, stocks can crash on a panic and then come back up in 6 months.  A correction doesn't lead to layoffs etc.  I'm talking about those kinds of economic repercussions that we saw from the Tech bubble/housing bubble/oil price bubble, etc. 

2.  Political ramifications for the Great-4th-Grade-Communicator.  I think this has already been touched upon briefly.  It's generally not good, but the question will remain going forward whose policies would be better for a recovery?  The Drainer-of-Swamps, or Bernie? 

You can argue that things should be better for certain sectors, and that L'Orange's economic policies havn't had all that much effect, but the overall picture is that the economy has been pretty good over the last 3 years. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 28, 2020, 03:25:41 PM
This whole thing is, as of right now, pretty overblown. Yes, it’s serious and we should take precautions but it’s not near as deadly as the regular flu seasons we get every single year. I think a little over 32,000 in the US have died from the flu this year. A couple years ago it was something like 65,000.

The fatality rate for Coronavirus is barely measurable for people under 60, well under 1%. It’s the really old or already immune system compromised at risk - just like for regular flu. I understand that something like 20% of the infected never even become symptomatic. There is an incredible overreaction that is simply not warranted at this point.

I get the reasons the media want this to spin out of control but fanning the flames of this to create a panic is grossly irresponsible.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 28, 2020, 03:26:25 PM
That being said, I did look at my 401k. All I could do was laugh. It’ll bounce back by summer.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on February 28, 2020, 04:41:37 PM
Not being symptomatic is not actually a good thing in this case, as it makes impeding transmission more difficult... given that estimates of mortality run in the 1% to 3% range, depending on whose numbers you believe, if covid 19 does run amok, we'll likely see many more deaths before it's done.

Will it rise to the level of the seasonal flu? It's impossible to say at this point.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on February 28, 2020, 05:25:22 PM
This whole thing is, as of right now, pretty overblown. Yes, it’s serious and we should take precautions but it’s not near as deadly as the regular flu seasons we get every single year. I think a little over 32,000 in the US have died from the flu this year.

I think this is a ridiculous statement and I'll explain why.  It hasn't killed as many people in the US as the regular flu, yet, because it hasn't hit the United States yet and the flu season is nearly over.  Seasonal influenza has a mortality rate of around 0.1%.  If COVID19 has a mortality rate of 1-2% in the United States, it would kill 10 to 20 times the amount of people this year that died from flu.  It is in fact MORE deadly than influenza, and everybody else seems to understand this.  Increased precautions in China, the US, and the rest of the world may actually curtain the total deaths from COVID 19, but these precautions are being put in place precisely BECAUSE it is more deadly than influenza.  Things seem to be winding down in China.  The worst hit area of China may only end up with .1-.2% deaths to total population.  But that is precisely because they put the place on lockdown. 

Quote
The fatality rate for Coronavirus is barely measurable for people under 60, well under 1%. It’s the really old or already immune system compromised at risk - just like for regular flu.

This may be true, but the deaths of the elderly are still deaths.  If the point here is that COVID19 mainly only kills the elderly, you are correct.  If the point is that we shouldn't care or that it's ok, that's a callous POV. 

Quote
I get the reasons the media want this to spin out of control but fanning the flames of this to create a panic is grossly irresponsible.

I honestly don't believe that "the media", particularly mainstream media, are responsible for fanning flames or spinning things out of control.  Most of the disinformation I've seen has been from social media sources, and most of the fanning has been from people who don't believe anything that comes out of China and conspiracy theorists. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 28, 2020, 06:50:01 PM
Quote
If the point is that we shouldn't care or that it's ok, that's a callous POV. 

Is that your point of view? It’s not mine nor did I even remotely try to make that point. It’s pretty much something you made up.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 28, 2020, 06:56:00 PM
Quote
Increased precautions in China, the US, and the rest of the world may actually curtain the total deaths from COVID 19, but these precautions are being put in place precisely BECAUSE it is more deadly than influenza.

It’s more deadly? Is it? As of this post, less than 2,500 deaths are officially recorded worldwide. We get 10 to 20 times that every year in the US alone from influenza.  How do you get Coronavirus being more deadly?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on February 28, 2020, 06:59:52 PM
2.  Political ramifications for the Great-4th-Grade-Communicator.  I think this has already been touched upon briefly.  It's generally not good, but the question will remain going forward whose policies would be better for a recovery?  The Drainer-of-Swamps, or Bernie? 

You can argue that things should be better for certain sectors, and that L'Orange's economic policies havn't had all that much effect, but the overall picture is that the economy has been pretty good over the last 3 years.

The political ramifications for any sitting president when something like this happens are almost always negative. You can bet that if this happened when Obama was president, the right would be making hay off it, including looping it into border security somehow. I fully suspect the left will follow suit and claim that somehow Trump policies are making this worse. Although, technically "this" is quite literally nothing at this point in the US.

Lol, @ pretty good.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 28, 2020, 07:25:34 PM
Actually, the right is already looping this into border security.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 29, 2020, 08:02:29 AM
For some perspective, let’s look back at April 2009:

Quote
Since the H1N1 flu pandemic began in April, millions of people in the United States have been infected, at least 20,000 have been hospitalized and more than 1,000 have died, said Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Six months later, Obama declared a national emergency. Looking at the archives, I generally don’t see any serious concerns expressed by anyone.  A few questions about if it’s appropriate to call it a pandemic or not and how everyone is overreacting but that’s about it.

Contrast that with the current reactions.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on February 29, 2020, 09:36:20 AM
I think we need to be careful about dismissing covid-19 before it actually spreads to its full extent.

The full mortality effects of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic were re-estimated years later, in 2013, to be 10 times higher than initially measured.  That's probably why the medical community has changed in how it responds to pandemics.

If covid-19 manages to infect even 1/10 those normally infected by a common flu strain, we will see mortality 2-3 times that of a 'regular' flu season.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on February 29, 2020, 09:43:51 AM
It’s more deadly? Is it? As of this post, less than 2,500 deaths are officially recorded worldwide. We get 10 to 20 times that every year in the US alone from influenza.  How do you get Coronavirus being more deadly?

Crunch, if you can't get the point from the previous post, I don't think anything else is going to help.  But here we go. 

The deadliness of a thing is generally a measure of it's POTENTIAL to cause death or injury, rather than the amount of death or injury it actually has caused. 

POTENTIALITY
vs
ACTUALITY

A gun may not have actually caused any deaths or harm.  Yet it is still a deadly weapon, because of it's POTENTIAL to cause death or harm. 
VX gas may not have caused very many deaths or injuries.  Yet it is still a very dangerous chemical weapon, because of it's POTENTIAL to cause death or harm. 
Clorox may not kill very many people through ingestion every year.  Yet it is still a deadly poison because of it's POTENTIAL to cause death or harm. 
Coronavirus may not have killed as many people as influenza this year, yet, because it's just started and the flu season is almost over.  But COVID19 has a higher mortality rate than influenza, and a similar transmissibility, so it's POTENTIAL to kill more people than influenza is higher, making it more deadly. 





Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 29, 2020, 10:08:53 AM
A large meteor has the POTENTIAL to eliminate all life on earth. POTENTIAL!! ALL LIFE!!

Should we shut down everything for it and run around like our hair is on fire? I mean, if it's all about POTENTIAL. ::)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on February 29, 2020, 10:37:59 AM
Should we shut down everything for it and run around like our hair is on fire? I mean, if it's all about POTENTIAL. ::)

That's a different subject, Crunch.  You said that COVID 19 wasn't as deadly as the regular flu and quoted the total number of deaths for flu season.  I pointed out that it was ridiculous and why.  Case closed. 

BUT.... since you brought it up.   The POTENTIAL of a large meteor ending all life on earth this year is actually much lower than the POTENTIAL of 400,000 people in the US dying from COVID 19 this year.  That would be a whole lot more than the 32,000 that died from the flu last year. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on February 29, 2020, 10:49:18 AM
Observing that covid-19 may have a higher mortality rate than seasonal flu or swine flu, and that it may be just as communicable, and clarifying misstatements about those points, doesn't necessarily lead to rash policy proposals.

It may be too soon to calculate true mortality rates, and to understand perfectly how communicable the infection is, but we don't know nothing - it is transmissible in much the same way as other known viruses are, and has similar incubation periods as other known viruses, so we can actually make a pretty good model of how the virus will spread through the population.  And it seems unlikely, given the incubation period and the human response to the virus, that it will not spread to every country in the world.

I think one of the main pushes right now is to limit the immediate spread of the virus so that the seasonal flu (in the northern hemisphere) peters out before the primary effects of covid-19 are felt, reducing the strain on health systems.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 29, 2020, 11:06:18 AM
I think we need to be careful about dismissing covid-19 before it actually spreads to its full extent.

The full mortality effects of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic were re-estimated years later, in 2013, to be 10 times higher than initially measured.  That's probably why the medical community has changed in how it responds to pandemics.

If covid-19 manages to infect even 1/10 those normally infected by a common flu strain, we will see mortality 2-3 times that of a 'regular' flu season.

Absolutely, and I don't think anyone is dismissing it. I can say let's have a reasonable response and that what is happening is an overreaction and still not dismiss the virus and its impact. "If" and "could be" is essentially fear-mongering. Are you stockpiling food and water?

Interesting question, have any of you guys done anything to prepare for the apocalypse of cornonavirus?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 29, 2020, 11:07:49 AM
Should we shut down everything for it and run around like our hair is on fire? I mean, if it's all about POTENTIAL. ::)

That's a different subject, Crunch.  You said that COVID 19 wasn't as deadly as the regular flu and quoted the total number of deaths for flu season.  I pointed out that it was ridiculous and why.  Case closed. 
I know you think you did. Good for you. ;)

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on February 29, 2020, 11:18:33 AM
Interesting question, have any of you guys done anything to prepare for the apocalypse of cornonavirus?

My hot water tank can serve as fresh water for a good two weeks. That’s my prep so far.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on February 29, 2020, 11:26:37 AM
I've had a trip to Europe cancelled, but that wasn't my call (though I am paying attention to outbreaks, and will make decisions based on new information).

Preparation?  For a viral pandemic, there is little to do to prepare.  When the infection rates rise in NA, I'll avoid two-cheek kiss and handshake greetings, I'll be assiduous about handwashing and proper mucous disposal, I may telecommute slightly more and will avoid air travel and public transit.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 29, 2020, 11:35:59 AM
I did go to the grocery store this morning and whatever was on my list I bought a couple of extra. Nothing all that huge, instead of everything I need for next week I probably have enough for the following week as well now. My main thing was to have enough on hand that I could avoid going out for a couple of weeks. It seems like overkill though.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on February 29, 2020, 12:05:15 PM
I will also point out that, at the moment, yes, about 2,5% of the symptomatic infected die (compared to a 0,1-0,2%  depending on the year for flu), but that around 15% develop sufficiently severe respiratory symptoms to require multi-week hospitalization, and 5% are bad enough to require respirators.

Right now there are, here at least, few enough infected so that hospitals can take care of everybody at an adequate level, but if the numbers start to really scale up, we are going to see many doctors and healthcare personnel get sick themselves, hospitals getting flooded by sick people, and the level of care will go down dramatically.
This will not help keeping the mortality down.

I think even if its not stated loudly this is the main reason behind containment rules: they are not going to *really* stop the virus, its too contagious, but if you keep the spread slow enough, the healthcare system will be able to manage the flux of sick people without undue strain, and hopefully the hot season will then help putting an end to it.

Anyway, Italian status bulletin: here yesterday night official bulletin (the next will come out in a couple of hours) was 821 infected and 21 deaths, keeping in line with the 2,5% we have seen all week.
So, we've seen an increase of 10 times the infected in about 5-6 days.

Of course, as the world did not end in 2 days after the start of the panic (most people do not properly understand the power of a geometric progression), now everybody is starting making noises to stop all these bothersome containment measures and let students go to school, restart the economy etc... but it seems for the moment the recommendations of the WHO are still winning, so at least the schools will remain close for further 8 days in the 3 most infected regions.

(Notes about my own "apocalypse preparations": I always keep in my pantry one or two weeks worth of non perishable food, nothing fancy like those "prepper rations" somebody goes for, simply stuff that I use normally but that can last a lot and don't require cooking, like canned peas or beans, canned tuna and meat, crackers, honey, that kind of stuff.
In these days I'm simply making sure to use mostly fresh food and vegetables and avoid touching the canned reserve... ).
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on February 29, 2020, 12:26:49 PM
When the infection rates rise in NA, I'll avoid two-cheek kiss and handshake greetings, I'll be assiduous about handwashing and proper mucous disposal, I may telecommute slightly more and will avoid air travel and public transit.

All good stuff.  But I just want to remind everyone that the reports of confirmed cases by the CDC or Johns Hopkins or whatever you're getting on local news is going to be a week behind reality. 

Patient zero in any given community (not THE patient zero) is not going to present for testing for the virus until they've been symptomatic roughly 5-7 days, when the respiratory problems become severe (if they even become severe).  So they've already transmitted the virus to an average of 2-4 people.  That's just an average.  One lady in ROK went to megachurch and brunch and possibly got 1000 people sick.  Given an incubation period of 2-5 days, it's possible to catch some of the close contacts of patient zero and test them and quarantine them before they are symptomatic, but it's not a given.  A admissibility of 2-4 is just fine.  But it's those in large cities and using public transportation or large social gatherings like church that can cause problems. 

There have been some recent reports of new community cases of COVID19 in the US, starting last night I think.  It's possible that we get a hold of it here, but there is also a chance that it is loose and the outbreak has begun.  It all depends on what these people did since they became symptomatic.  There is no way for us to know, but we can know that the risk in the US just ticked up a little bit.  As someone already mentioned, if you have a patient that does not develop severe symptoms, they can continue to spread the virus without ever knowing they had it. 

At any given time, for every new confirmed case, there could be an average of 2-4 more cases out there. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on February 29, 2020, 12:52:55 PM
Quick update as today numbers are out: 1128 infected, 29 death, and the first 50 recovered.
We've also some more numbers about the severity, as 401 of those are hospitalized, plus other 105 that are in intensive care. The rest are on self-quarantine at their homes.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 29, 2020, 02:18:06 PM
When the infection rates rise in NA, I'll avoid two-cheek kiss and handshake greetings, I'll be assiduous about handwashing and proper mucous disposal, I may telecommute slightly more and will avoid air travel and public transit.

All good stuff.  But I just want to remind everyone that the reports of confirmed cases by the CDC or Johns Hopkins or whatever you're getting on local news is going to be a week behind reality. 

Patient zero in any given community (not THE patient zero) is not going to present for testing for the virus until they've been symptomatic roughly 5-7 days, when the respiratory problems become severe (if they even become severe).  So they've already transmitted the virus to an average of 2-4 people.  That's just an average.  One lady in ROK went to megachurch and brunch and possibly got 1000 people sick.  Given an incubation period of 2-5 days, it's possible to catch some of the close contacts of patient zero and test them and quarantine them before they are symptomatic, but it's not a given.  A admissibility of 2-4 is just fine.  But it's those in large cities and using public transportation or large social gatherings like church that can cause problems. 

There have been some recent reports of new community cases of COVID19 in the US, starting last night I think.  It's possible that we get a hold of it here, but there is also a chance that it is loose and the outbreak has begun.  It all depends on what these people did since they became symptomatic.  There is no way for us to know, but we can know that the risk in the US just ticked up a little bit.  As someone already mentioned, if you have a patient that does not develop severe symptoms, they can continue to spread the virus without ever knowing they had it. 

At any given time, for every new confirmed case, there could be an average of 2-4 more cases out there.

Ah, yeah, I think I get it now. Why you’re so upbeat.

Quote
Could the coronavirus be the magic bullet to kill off the Trump presidency? Desperate Democrats certainly hope so; they imagine the spreading disease will knock confidence and our robust economy for a loop, undermining President Trump’s best argument for reelection.

Get some intense fear going, a decent body count if you’re lucky, could be a win for Democrats. Very machiavellian.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on February 29, 2020, 02:58:39 PM
Get some intense fear going, a decent body count if you’re lucky, could be a win for Democrats. Very machiavellian.

You caught me, Crunch.  This has been our plan all along.  Secretly develop the virus and release it in order to kill millions of people worldwide, create a worldwide recession, and then blame The Dear Leader, so that he can be replaced by Bernie Sanders. 

The only thing you have wrong though.... is that I'm not a Democrat. 

I'm a secret associate of Chase Manhattan, embedded in an oil production company. 

But I should have known that you, Crunch, my arch-enemy, would discover our nefarious scheme, with your powerful and insightful intellect.  (Machiavellian is capitalized, by the way).  Though I see you had some help from Liz Peek, our old foe at CIT.  I suppose I was too upbeat and it gave me away.  Blast you, Crunch!   

Just know that you cannot stop our devious plans to remove The Chosen One from the Presidency and replace him with Sanders.    Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaa. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 29, 2020, 03:25:37 PM
Near Perfect response. Just missing about a dozen 9’s.

I know who you are, and I see your embarrassment.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 29, 2020, 04:01:55 PM
Quote
Health officials in Washington state said on Saturday a coronavirus patient has died, marking the first death in the U.S. from COVID-19, the illness associated with the virus.

Well, looks like the panic has been 100% fully justified.  I mean, if one person died, the POTENTIAL is, I dunno, like 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 could die. It’s panic time.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on February 29, 2020, 06:51:00 PM
Global update

Quote
The number of cases in China is already falling. Where once the graph of coronavirus cases in China showed an exponential climb, it has now leveled off substantially. Just three weeks ago, China was recording more than 3,000 new cases per day

There were just 318 new cases in China in the 24 hours of Feb 28. Infections are falling dramatically. However POTENTIAL remains infinite.

Quote
The vast majority of cases are mild, and the death rate is likely lower than reported. A large study of 72,000 confirmed COVID-19 patients in China found that 81% of cases were mild, another 14% were severe (characterized by difficulty breathing), and 5% were critical.

Overall, the death rate was 2.3 percent. More recently, the WHO reported a death rate of 3.8% in China, but noted that it is rapidly falling as standards of care quickly improve. Early on, the city of Wuhan (where the disease originated) was inundated with patients and hospitals could not provide proper care due to overwhelming demand. For Chinese patients whose symptoms started after February 1st, the death rate is just 0.7 percent.

The death rate could be even lower, as very mild cases of COVID-19 that resemble a common cold likely go unreported.

Right. Reasonable care being available, pretty treatable. No big deal.

Quote
There have been no reported deaths in young children. Though the outbreak has endured for more than nine weeks, there still have been no fatalities in children under the age of nine, with almost all infected simply experiencing cold-like symptoms. Moreover, only 2.4% of cases are in individuals under the age of 18. Kids and teenagers have been surprisingly resistant to the virus.

The death rate for people aged 10 to 39 currently stands at just 0.2 percent. Those genuinely at risk from COVID-19 are the elderly. People aged 80 and up have a 14.8% to 21.9% chance of dying if infected.

Se bottom line, it’s the over 80 crowd skewing the fatality rate of virus. If you’re under 80, in a country with reasonable care, your odds of survival are excellent - roughly on par with the flu if you include all those cases where people barely knew they even had it or never became symptomatic at all. 

Still, if we go with the POTENTIAL standard championed above, could be the end of the world because, you know, POTENTIAL.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on February 29, 2020, 07:09:21 PM
Quote
The death rate for people aged 10 to 39 currently stands at just 0.2 percent.
If accurate, that means covid-19 has roughly twice the mortality rate for that age group as compared to seasonal flu across all age groups, or 7 times the mortality rate for the same age group. I don't think this observation supports your point the way you think it does.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 29, 2020, 07:29:24 PM
Another thing to consider is just the quarantines themselves. Say you don't get it or maybe you do but you recover easily. However, you went somewhere at the same time as someone who was diagnosed, like at a church or an elementary school or a gym. Or perhaps it was just a family member you live with who went there. Now there is potential exposure. So the CDC starts tracking and testing all of the people they can find. And now you are quarantined, maybe on a voluntary basis or perhaps not so voluntary. Or you avoid going to those kinds of places where you risk exposure and avoid the possibility of getting quarantined altogether. You get your food late at night when the 24 hour supermarket is less crowded and they make you do the self-checkout. Stuff like that.

But the point is that one thing that is different about this virus is that our government is doing actual quarantines of large numbers of people. That doesn't happen with the flu.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 01, 2020, 07:56:37 AM
Quote
The death rate for people aged 10 to 39 currently stands at just 0.2 percent.
If accurate, that means covid-19 has roughly twice the mortality rate for that age group as compared to seasonal flu across all age groups, or 7 times the mortality rate for the same age group. I don't think this observation supports your point the way you think it does.

My point is that the fatality rate is 0.2%. So that observation supports my point perfectly.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 01, 2020, 08:56:00 AM
Quote
At the moment, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allows for testing only symptomatic people who traveled to China recently or those who have had contact with someone who tested positive for coronavirus. (Officials have said the criteria may be re-evaluated.)

“We could be missing a great number of cases that don’t fit into those criteria,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

How great a number could we be missing?
Quote
A far higher portion of asymptomatic cases was found on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, where 322 of 621 people tested positive but showed no symptoms.

That’s over 50% of infected that never would’ve shown up in mortality calculations since they had no symptoms or symptoms so mild they didn’t consider themselves sick. Is that an outlier or an average? We don’t really know.

This is a serious virus and it should be aggressively addressed but it’s hardly the “big one” a few of you are hoping for.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 01, 2020, 09:24:45 AM
This is a serious virus and it should be aggressively addressed but it’s hardly the “big one” a few of you are hoping for.
Wait - what?  Who are the "you" to which you are referring, and how did you get the idea that they are hoping that the virus becomes serious?

This seems to be another example of people being unable to accept facts because of possible interpretations that might be advanced as a result of the existence of facts, and then an associated transference of this process to others.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 01, 2020, 09:27:10 AM
All good stuff.  But I just want to remind everyone that the reports of confirmed cases by the CDC or Johns Hopkins or whatever you're getting on local news is going to be a week behind reality. 
True - but infection rates generally increase geometrically, so a week's delay in getting absolute numbers is less important than the trend for these purposes.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on March 01, 2020, 09:57:53 AM
  True - but infection rates generally increase geometrically, so a week's delay in getting absolute numbers is less important than the trend for these purposes.

It depends on who is using the data, what it is being used for, and if they understand exactly what the numbers mean.  The people who are putting out the numbers and doctors and other health care professions understand what the numbers mean and what they can be used for.  The general public maybe not so much. 

I feel that the general public, or even public officials without training or advisors, can misunderstand that the numbers are definitive and use it to form risk analysis that is faulty.  It can also create a level of panic when people see the numbers continue to grow and they don't understand why measure are not being taken or are not effective. 

Joe Blow sees that there are 100 confirmed cases of COVID19 in New York City.  That's not a great deal for such a big place.  He knows they have been identified and are quarantined in the hospital.  Maybe he feels pretty safe.  Then he is surprised when schools are shut down or public transport is shut down. 

What Joe Blow doesn't get is that the 100 confirmed cases that are now bad enough to be tested have probably created 200-400 cases that are currently symptomatic but have not been confirmed.  In addition, these 200-400 symptomatic patients that have not been confirmed have further infected 400-1600 patients that are non-symptomatic and are in the incubation process.  So 100 confirmed cases means a possible 400 to 1600 total infected.  That's just using an average R0.  The explosion in ROK goes to show just how bad things could get in high density areas. 

The reason I think it's important to understand this for the general public and for public servants is so they can make adequate risk assessments based on their community.  Public servants need to be able to know the right time to shut down things like schools or public transport or sporting events, etc.  The public need to understand when to up the level of their own social distancing and preventive measures. 

But the fact of the matter is that nobody is really talking about this other than me I think.  So the result of this is going to be public servants making decisions that may seem unfathomable to the general public which can cause further alarm.  There is already too much paranoia, conspiracy thinking, and general distrust in the general public.  Particularly online. 


Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 01, 2020, 10:15:08 AM
"for these purposes" meaning, for what I need to know for my own precautions.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 01, 2020, 10:53:07 AM
I wonder if we'll get to the point where there are so many people infected that we just give up on quarantines because they will cost the economy too much money. We'll help people to recover and we'll take some common sense measures to reduce the risk of it spreading but shutting people away for weeks will no longer be the norm even when they test positive.

It would be like trying to quarantine everyone who has the flu. We don't do it. We just accept the death rate and the illnesses and move on. It looks like the death rate is much higher with this but then so is the infection rate and ease of spread so although we could save more lives than we could with the flu we'd also have to quarantine tens of millions of people, maybe hundreds of millions if the 70% eventual population infection rate happens.

I'm not seeing any very serious efforts by our government to contain this. Like with Reagan and AIDS, people need to try to keep themselves from being infected because nobody else is going to do it for you. A lot of people don't seem to care either. "I'm not going to change my lifestyle just for this."
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on March 01, 2020, 11:15:51 AM
I wonder if we'll get to the point where there are so many people infected that we just give up on quarantines because they will cost the economy too much money.

I don't think we're going to end up going the Chinese route and shutting down whole cities.  I think we'll possibly end up shutting down schools, public events, etc, while most individuals choose to minimize discretionary social contact.  This is all speculatory on my part, however.  My big questions is what is going to happen with public transportation and supermarket access.  Then all the problems involved with closing schools.  Daycare centers are IMO even worse than public schools for limiting disease.  Daycare centers may as well change their name to Plague Centers IMO, and I don't mean that in a good way. 

The cac is going to get wild, and I really don't know how it will shape up.  But when outbreaks begin in New York City, Miami, Boston, and Los Angeles, things are going to get real interesting. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 01, 2020, 12:14:17 PM
There are some benefits in slowing the short-term spread of the virus that may not, in the end, reduce the eventual total infection extent:
1. More time to prepare infrastructure, treatments, anti viral medications, etc.
2. Spreading out the effects so as to reduce load spikes in medical care facilities and on care providers.
3. More time to educate the public.
4. The further into the warm season the spread can be delayed, the more likely it will be that the warm weather will slow the spread of the virus, in the same way as seasonal flu viruses have more difficulty spreading in warmer, more humid air.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 01, 2020, 12:32:28 PM
This is a serious virus and it should be aggressively addressed but it’s hardly the “big one” a few of you are hoping for.
Wait - what?  Who are the "you" to which you are referring, and how did you get the idea that they are hoping that the virus becomes serious?

This seems to be another example of people being unable to accept facts because of possible interpretations that might be advanced as a result of the existence of facts, and then an associated transference of this process to others.

For example, the NYT labelling it the “Trump Virus”. Or maybe Pelosi calling out CDC budget cuts only to fund it never happened the way she said it did. Or maybe get out of the bubble and review social media. You’ve got tons of options beyond MSNBC.

What you have there is another example of being unable to accept anything that contradicts your viewpoint and a willingness to say anything you can to support that viewpoint no matter how illogical or deceptive it is.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 01, 2020, 12:42:31 PM
So addressing your post to "a few of you" was meant for Nancy Pelosi and the NYT?  Aside from neither Pelosi nor "the NYT" being likely to ever read your post, so then not likely accurately described as "you", I'll also point out that the NYT cannot accurately be described as just "a few" people, so that seems unlikely, but... OK. 

FYI, I have read nothing by either Pelosi nor the NYT on this topic.  As for social media - yes, we understand that your social media echo chamber is likely where you get most of your 'info'
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 01, 2020, 12:44:09 PM
That’s precisely what I’m talking about, you literally just demonstrated my point. Literally

FYI, did you know that social media is dominated by liberal views? You should check it out sometime. It’s not what you’re making it up to be.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 01, 2020, 01:03:55 PM
No, you really need to read what people write.

Here's a hint: you wrote "it’s hardly the “big one” a few of you are hoping for."
I responded asking "Who are the "you" to which you are referring" pointing out (I had hoped) that nobody on this thread had attempted to peg this on Trump (with the exception of Wayward, in a single post) never mind was "hoping" that it was the big one.
To which you retreated by blaming people not posting here of bad actions.

I won't continue beating a dead horse, but it was clear you mistakenly were attributing actions and motives to people on this thread for which there is simply no evidence, and when challenged, you pretended to be talking to Nancy Pelosi and the NYT, as opposed to about them. (Realistically, we understand that you lump all people you perceive as in opposition to your beliefs together, so points made by Nancy Pelosi can therefore be fairly attributed to, say, Grant or The Drake.)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 01, 2020, 01:10:39 PM
If you want to be pedantic, and obviously you do, go ahead. I don’t care.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 01, 2020, 01:15:37 PM
No, you really need to read what people write.

Here's a hint: you wrote "it’s hardly the “big one” a few of you are hoping for."
I responded asking "Who are the "you" to which you are referring" pointing out (I had hoped) that nobody on this thread had attempted to peg this on Trump (with the exception of Wayward, in a single post) never mind was "hoping" that it was the big one.
To which you retreated by blaming people not posting here of bad actions.

I won't continue beating a dead horse, but it was clear you mistakenly were attributing actions and motives to people on this thread for which there is simply no evidence, and when challenged, you pretended to be talking to Nancy Pelosi and the NYT, as opposed to about them. (Realistically, we understand that you lump all people you perceive as in opposition to your beliefs together, so points made by Nancy Pelosi can therefore be fairly attributed to, say, Grant or The Drake.)

When people like Crunch aren't pretending that people who don't think like him are out to get him, he's probably laughing about how drunk Nancy Pelosi is whenever she talks.  Neigh! The dead horse has a few kicks left in him. Neigh, I say!
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 02, 2020, 01:38:49 AM

If you get put into a mandatory quarantine by the CDC do you have to pay for that?

Also, apparently you have to pay an arm and a leg to get tested too.

"Last month, a man in Miami who returned from a work trip to China feeling sick went to a hospital to be tested for coronavirus. The test came back negative, but his high-deductible health insurance provider told him he would have to pay at least $1,400, the Miami Herald reported, and provide three years of medical records to prove that the flu he got was not related to a preexisting condition. Without producing the records, he would owe $3,270 for getting tested."

It seems like this might be an area where taxpayer funded healthcare makes a lot of sense. If people have to pay three large to get tested that's going to hurt efforts to find out who has it and contain it.


https://theintercept.com/2020/02/28/american-evacuated-wuhan-us-billed-flight-mandatory-quarantine/
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 02, 2020, 04:35:07 AM
Just bumped in an interesting article on the "Scientific American" website: does not say anything it have not been said already, but it does say it quite better and with more data:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/preparing-for-coronavirus-to-strike-the-u-s/

Quote
(...) if we can slow the transmission of the disease—flatten its curve—there will be many lives saved even if the same number of people eventually get sick, because everyone won’t show up at the hospital all at once. Plus, if we can flatten that curve, there is more time to develop a vaccine or find antivirals that help.

On related news, yesterday evening last bulletin in Italy was 1694 infected, including 83 recovered and 41 dead.
According to WHO, the end of this week will be the first when we start see if the containment measures are working or not.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on March 02, 2020, 08:25:00 AM
If you get put into a mandatory quarantine by the CDC do you have to pay for that?

Also, apparently you have to pay an arm and a leg to get tested too.

I doubt that non critical cases of COVID19 are going to be quarantined in hospitals.  It's more likely that they order quarantine at home.  This of course means that the quarantine is unenforced, but we're not going to have enough people or beds to watch every single body that catches the virus. 

I'm slightly surprised that the guy from China was quarantined, but it's likely because he was one of the first the CDC could get their hands on.  His bill doesn't seem very high considering that he has no insurance that covers heathcare in the United States.  The hospital has already said the bill was sent by mistake, but he still has to pay a bunch of money for the Ambulance ride.  Private ambulance companies are notorious for charging $200/mile.  I know, I worked for one.  I'm not in favor of private ambulance companies, because they charge like pirates, but the flip side is that they generally provide better care and have better response times because they're not dependent on tax income and government bureaucracy. 

The guy from Miami did have insurance, but his bill was high because a CT scan was ordered.  I don't know why they ordered a CT, but they're not cheap.  The cost of the test kits are covered by the CDC.  They've already appropriated some emergency funding. 

The cost of the testing with the CDC kits will probably be covered by the government.  If they order additional tests, or any additional treatment, none of it will be free.  That's American healthcare.  If you develop pneumonia and need to be put in the ICU, you're going to have a pretty big bill. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 02, 2020, 09:27:51 AM
No worries about handling the sickest COVID-19 patients.  Trump's team has got it covered, especially in Alabama (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/01/quarantine-alabama-conspiracy-chaos-coronavirus/):

Quote
In Anniston, local leaders were stunned to discover serious problems with the federal government’s plan for dealing with patients infected with the virus — starting with how the patients would get to Alabama, according to interviews with county and city officials, along with business leaders who dealt with the federal response.

“I was shocked,” Anniston Mayor Jack Draper said. “I was shocked by the lack of planning. I was shocked by the manner in which it was presented to us.”
...
The HHS plan also called for housing coronavirus patients at the Center for Domestic Preparedness, a FEMA facility on the old Army base and one of several redevelopment projects at the sprawling outpost.
...
The dorms normally house emergency responders from around the country.

But the center doesn’t have any special capabilities for handling infectious diseases, local officials said. The center is used for training. It has isolation hospital rooms — located in a former Army hospital building — but they are mostly just props, with fake equipment and light switches that exist only as paint on walls.

Waiting for Trump's diehard defenders here to come up with something, if they're not too busy defending Donald Jr's claim that Democrats want millions of Americans to die from the disease.  That should be easy, since Pence has already staked out the lines of the defense.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 02, 2020, 09:45:09 AM
The handling of this has been a huge disappointment, to put it mildly. Trump trying to downplay it at first was also a big mistake. The Iranian government did that and now some of them are dead from the virus. The only saving grace perhaps for Trump is that all the Democrats do is criticize. They haven't suggested anything that would be helpful. Trump did one thing right and that was a travel ban but it didn't go nearly far enough. But if he had gone further he would have been met with lawsuits and injunctions. We need one right now on all non essential travel but no Democrats are calling for it as far as I know, and of course neither is Trump. They seem to think money thrown at everything is the answer. It may have been here for a month now so limiting travel is the only way to limit its spread until we can get enough test kits in play but nobody on either side of the aisle is up for the headache that will cause. We're dealing with a virus that looks like it has a very long incubation period so there are who knows how many people walking around as asymptomatic infection vectors and to top that off it has a possible biphasic element so people are cleared and then it remanifests from a hidden reservoir inside the body. This looks like it's out of control and our government isn't doing anything competent to stop it. The CDC is releasing infectious people from quarantine. The State Department brought infectious people home on a plane with non-infected people who were unaware of their situation and didn't protect State Department personnel from personally interacting with contagious people or protect any of the public or the families of the State Department personnel from their numerous personal interactions thereafter. Many of the CDC test kits are flawed and inaccurate. I mean it just goes on and on.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on March 02, 2020, 09:48:47 AM

Waiting for Trump's diehard defenders here to come up with something, if they're not too busy defending Donald Jr's claim that Democrats want millions of Americans to die from the disease.  That should be easy, since Pence has already staked out the lines of the defense.

I'm not a diehard defender by any means, but I think turning this into a political football, which some have already tried to do one way or the other, is reprehensible.  If there are problems they need to be fixed.  If you're not part of that process, leave it to people that are part of that process.  There will be setbacks.  There always are.  The people we think would be best for handling situations may not always be the people in charge, but it is what it is.  This is what we have to work with and we all need to work together because we're all in this together.  It's no different then at work or in the military.  Lead, follow, or get out of the way. 

As for the Alabama story, it doesn't seem to have any responses from the HHS officials involved in the process.  I'm hesitant to buy all in on the unpreparedness theme if there is no other side of the story presented, and the side that is being presented is related to a small Alabama town where people are getting their info from Facebook and concerned about secret helicopters in the night and the virus being a bioweapon.  It sounds like the community had made up their minds already, and their public servants were going to further that opinion so they could keep their jobs.  Just another possible example of lack of leadership from American politicians. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on March 02, 2020, 10:43:50 AM
We need one right now on all non essential travel

I havn't seen anybody else really call for a government non-essential travel ban.  I'm not even sure it's enforceable.  Lots of corporations are already putting in place these travel bans or isolation procedures.  These precautions can buy us more time, but the virus isn't going back into the box.  You can only slow it down. 

Quote
It may have been here for a month now so limiting travel is the only way to limit its spread until we can get enough test kits in play

Far more important then blanket travel bans are the general public self isolating when flu symptoms arise.  This is again unenforceable, but the key is that when people are sick they stay home. 

Quote
We're dealing with a virus that looks like it has a very long incubation period so there are who knows how many people walking around as asymptomatic infection vectors and to top that off it has a possible biphasic element so people are cleared and then it remanifests from a hidden reservoir inside the body.

Having a long incubation period actually helps limit the spread of the virus.  The longer it stays unsymptomatic and unable to spread to others, the longer it will take to jump from person to person to person.  The longer we have, the more time we have to play with identification and treatment.  People walking around asymptomatic are not the problem because you can't spread a droplet respiratory virus unless you're sneezing or coughing. 

The worry that it may be bi-phasic seems to have stemmed from a single source.  There is too much we don't know about this single case to make any conclusions.  Regardless, if it was bi-phasic, there would be no way of knowing it before hand. 

Quote
This looks like it's out of control and our government isn't doing anything competent to stop it.

The government isn't going to save us and it never could.  Washing your hands, not touching your face, covering your mouth when you cough and sneeze, and staying home when you're sick IS going to save some of us.  If you believe it's out of control and you're vulnerable, if you are older than 59, or have respiratory problems, then I suggest you self quarantine now.  I personally believe we have another 3-5 weeks before you would need to go there. 

Quote
The CDC is releasing infectious people from quarantine.

Source?

Quote
The State Department brought infectious people home on a plane with non-infected people who were unaware of their situation and didn't protect State Department personnel from personally interacting with contagious people or protect any of the public or the families of the State Department personnel from their numerous personal interactions thereafter.

Tough choices were made.  The infected were non-symptomatic, had been interacting with others already before State got ahold of them, and were put in a separate part of the plane.  Everyone that tested positive was quarantined upon arrive to the US. 

Quote
Many of the CDC test kits are flawed and inaccurate.

The problem with the test kits was identified and a workaround made so that they could still be used. 

Quote
I mean it just goes on and on.

Negative news is going to have a premium on positive news. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 02, 2020, 10:55:00 AM
"... self isolating when flu symptoms arise."

The problem is this is spreading with no symptoms.

"Having a long incubation period actually helps limit the spread of the virus."

Not in this case. This looks like it's contagious during the long incubation period.

And since some people, maybe even most people, shed the virus and never show symptoms at all that's a huge problem.

That's what makes it very different from the normal flu. With the flu, you usually know you have it pretty soon and it's over within a few days and you aren't very contagious while asymptomatic. This is almost the opposite of the flu.

Sometimes less virulent versions of a virus are able to spread most easily so we could be benefiting from that in cases where we aren't getting it quite directly from the source but it has spread among a few people first unlike the ones in Iran and South Korea that may have had fewer hosts between masses of infected people, especially if it has been circulating in America for over a month already. That's just speculation though. Well just about all of this is speculation.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 02, 2020, 10:58:07 AM
As for the mistaken release, this kind of thing also happened in Japan where either there was a false negative or there is a biphasic property to the virus or much less likely the lady picked it up again after release.


https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/485425-coronavirus-patient-in-san-antonio-mistakenly

Officials in San Antonio said that a patient recently cleared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) later tested positive for the coronavirus COVID-19 that is taking hold in the U.S. The patient was released into the public following a false-negative test result.

According to the Austin Statesman, San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg said that the patient was quarantined after contracting COVID-19, where they tested negative for COVID-19 twice. They were discharged from the Texas Center for Infectious Diseases on Saturday before a third test recorded positive results.

The patient has since been readmitted.

This comes as the CDC is facing criticism regarding how they have supported local health care providers ahead of the coronavirus outbreak. Cases in the U.S. have jumped over the past few days, and state and local labs were sent test kits last week. These are updated test kits following the first release which contained a reagent that gave inconclusive results.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on March 02, 2020, 11:05:18 AM
The problem is this is spreading with no symptoms.

Not in this case. This looks like it's contagious during the long incubation period.

I've read no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is transmissible when the patient is asymptomatic.  I'd like to know how a respiratory virus can be transmitted from patient to patient who is not coughing or sneezing.  The virus is a respiratory virus transmitted by water droplet.  This has been confirmed.  The virus cannot survive in the air alone like measels.  If it could, all of China would be sick. 

Please get your info from CDC or WHO or State Departments of Health.  This includes being skeptical on news stories from even main stream media such as WaPost, NYT, and major cable news networks.  Often, the medical or scientific expertise is not there to understand the data. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on March 02, 2020, 11:09:58 AM
According to the Austin Statesman, San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg said that the patient was quarantined after contracting COVID-19, where they tested negative for COVID-19 twice. They were discharged from the Texas Center for Infectious Diseases on Saturday before a third test recorded positive results.

Again, we don't know if this is due to poor testing, or some other cause. 

Quote
These are updated test kits following the first release which contained a reagent that gave inconclusive results.

The original CDC kits did have problems.  A workaround was found.  The problem was fixed.  Moving on. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 02, 2020, 11:20:56 AM
The problem is this is spreading with no symptoms.

Not in this case. This looks like it's contagious during the long incubation period.

I've read no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is transmissible when the patient is asymptomatic.  I'd like to know how a respiratory virus can be transmitted from patient to patient who is not coughing or sneezing.  The virus is a respiratory virus transmitted by water droplet.  This has been confirmed.  The virus cannot survive in the air alone like measels.  If it could, all of China would be sick. 

Please get your info from CDC or WHO or State Departments of Health.  This includes being skeptical on news stories from even main stream media such as WaPost, NYT, and major cable news networks.  Often, the medical or scientific expertise is not there to understand the data.

It's not hard to find. google: covid can be transmitted when patient is asymptomatic

CDC: Asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 has been reported, but it is not yet known what role asymptomatic infection plays in transmission. Similarly, the role of pre-symptomatic transmission (infection detection during the incubation period prior to illness onset) is unknown. Existing literature regarding SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses (e.g. MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV) suggest that the incubation period may range from 2–14 days.

WHO has this to say in one report:

Quote
Asymptomatic infection has been reported, but the majority of the relatively rare cases who are asymptomatic on the date of identification/report went on to develop disease. The proportion of truly asymptomatic infections is unclear but appears to be relatively rare and does not appear to be a major driver of transmission.

I'd summarize the current state, based on those statements, to be "yes it happens but not as often". This would make sense since the amount of virus in asymptomatic patients would likely be lower.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on March 02, 2020, 11:41:25 AM
covid can be transmitted when patient is asymptomatic

CDC: Asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 has been reported, but it is not yet known what role asymptomatic infection plays in transmission. Similarly, the role of pre-symptomatic transmission (infection detection during the incubation period prior to illness onset) is unknown.

Let me translate this for you, since this page was for health care professionals, not general public. 

"Asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 has been reported"  means two things.   1.  It means that you can have the infection but not be symptomatic.  NOT that it was transmitted from an asymptomatic patient.  2.  "Reported" is different than "confirmed".  "Reported" can be pretty reliable, but it depends on the source.  In this particular case, the report was that a person was infected but asymptomatic, not that it was transmitted by an asymptomatic patient. 

" it is not yet known what role asymptomatic infection plays in transmission. Similarly, the role of pre-symptomatic transmission (infection detection during the incubation period prior to illness onset) is unknown."

"It is not yet known what role asymptomatic infection plays in transmission" gives a bunch of wiggle room.  But what it does not say is "transmission can take place from an asymptomatic source".  CDC seems to be hedging it's bets in that particular statement while everything else they say points to an airborne droplet respiratory virus.  You can't transmit those without coughing or sneezing.

Quote
Asymptomatic infection has been reported, but the majority of the relatively rare cases who are asymptomatic on the date of identification/report went on to develop disease. The proportion of truly asymptomatic infections is unclear but appears to be relatively rare and does not appear to be a major driver of transmission.

Reported.  Not confirmed.  Unclear. 

Scientifically you're going to have to explain how a droplet respiratory virus is transmitted without a cough or sneeze.  Otherwise, you're going off patient reports, which are highly unreliable. 

"Have you been coughing or sneezing"? 
"Oh no"

"Fever?"
"Oh no"

"But you're sick now and came immediately when you got sick?"
"Oh yes"

"And your wife is sick too, and everyone in your workplace, but you havn't been coughing or sneezing?"
"Oh no, never" 

::Checks asymptomatic transmission box::


I mean, i've been taking histories from patients for 15 years and this is typical in 50% of stories.  This is not even when you're dealing with a repressive government with strict rules in place. 

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 02, 2020, 11:53:49 AM
Fair enough. I glossed over some of the detail.

I would ask you, lets say you must have a cough or sneeze. People can cough or sneeze for a variety of reasons. Couldn't a person carrying the virus sneeze because they have allergies and transmit the virus?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on March 02, 2020, 11:54:54 AM
Here we go

https://www.jwatch.org/na50998/2020/02/24/potential-transmission-sars-cov-2-asymptomatic-carrier
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762028

From NEJM:

Quote
This interesting cluster is highly suggestive of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from an asymptomatic carrier. However, there are a few caveats. We are not certain if the index case was positive for SARS-CoV-2 when she met with the other five persons; when the others were symptomatic, her RT-PCR was negative and her positive RT-PCR was quite late for the expected incubation period of around 5 to 14 days, although some have suggested the incubation period may be longer. Further, all six individuals visited a relative at a hospital. Although the authors state that no COVID-19 was previously reported at that hospital, nosocomial infection cannot be ruled out.

From the report itself

Quote
The mechanism by which asymptomatic carriers could acquire and transmit the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 requires further study.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on March 02, 2020, 11:58:00 AM
Fair enough. I glossed over some of the detail.

I would ask you, lets say you must have a cough or sneeze. People can cough or sneeze for a variety of reasons. Couldn't a person carrying the virus sneeze because they have allergies and transmit the virus?

I imagine that could be possible.  A great deal would depend on how quick the virus is able to replicate.  I admit I'm not a virologist.  I imagine you could have the virus and cough because you're trying to get someone's attention and transmit that way as well.  I suppose this could account for asymptomatic transmission cases being rare.  You got me there. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 02, 2020, 12:09:58 PM
It could also be transmitted by touch if the virus can survive for days on hard surfaces. Someone wipes their nose and then touches handrails, doorknobs, luggage bins, maybe even cash and credit cards, passports, and paperwork. You aren't coughing or sneezing, no fever or aches or pains, and you feel fine but you are a walking talking Typhoid Mary.

And though it may end up being the case it is not safe to assume that they can't be contagious just by breathing in close proximity or in places that recirculate the air and aren't very well ventilated like planes, taxis, and mass transit.

Too many assumptions have been made already that turned out not to be accurate, and the assumptions were made going in the opposite direction of better safe than sorry.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on March 02, 2020, 12:21:31 PM
It could also be transmitted by touch if the virus can survive for days on hard surfaces. Someone wipes their nose and then touches handrails, doorknobs, luggage bins, maybe even cash and credit cards, passports, and paperwork. You aren't coughing or sneezing, no fever or aches or pains, and you feel fine but you are a walking talking Typhoid Mary.

Meh.  Depends on the humidity and temperature.  Having a runny nose, rhinorhea, is being symptomatic. 

Quote
And though it may end up being the case it is not safe to assume that they can't be contagious just by breathing in close proximity or in places that recirculate the air and aren't very well ventilated like planes, taxis, and mass transit.

No, this is the exact definition of regular airborne transmission.  It doesn't work that way.  Relax. 

Quote
Too many assumptions have been made already that turned out not to be accurate, and the assumptions were made going in the opposite direction of better safe than sorry.

I think there is some cognitive distortion going on here. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 02, 2020, 12:37:25 PM
I’m really not getting how people should be doing anything different than proper hygiene and care for the flu. It looks to me like this will spread widely and it has probably been in the US population for a while but was undetected because for most people it presents in relatively minor ways. It seems to have significantly higher lethality for octogenarians, which sucks.

Does anyone think that making sure it’s headline news all day everyday is the right thing to do? Should Trump be holding press conferences telling people the end is nigh?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on March 02, 2020, 12:49:56 PM
I’m really not getting how people should be doing anything different than proper hygiene and care for the flu. It looks to me like this will spread widely and it has probably been in the US population for a while but was undetected because for most people it presents in relatively minor ways. It seems to have significantly higher lethality for octogenarians, which sucks.

Meh.  I think that proper prevention measures like washing hands and covering your mouth and staying home when you're sick are the most important things we can all do.  But I recognize that since this could be 10-20 times as dangerous as the flu, that at some point some extra measures may be taken like shutting down schools, public transport, public events, etc, may be called for.  I think what is happening in Italy is a good example of what may happen in the US.  I agree a bunch of us are going to get it.  I agree it's already here but how well control measures have been will be something that we won't know for another 5-7 days. 

Quote
Does anyone think that making sure it’s headline news all day everyday is the right thing to do? Should Trump be holding press conferences telling people the end is nigh?

Meh.  The news industry isn't about what is best for people to know or what keeps them best informed.  It would be nice if it was.  I think a certain amount of exposure is necessary so people understand the risks, take necessary precautions, make proper planning, and so that they are not surprised and shocked and panicked when Boomers start dying in greater numbers.   

Should L'Orange be holding press conferences?  I dunno.  That depends on your level of faith in the guy.  I understand his way of communication, particularly when he is bashing Democrats, is comforting and inspiring to some.  If he makes some people happy and comforts them, then by all means. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 02, 2020, 01:02:39 PM
Quote
Meh.  The news industry isn't about what is best for people to know or what keeps them best informed.  It would be nice if it was.  I think a certain amount of exposure is necessary so people understand the risks, take necessary precautions, make proper planning, and so that they are not surprised and shocked and panicked when Boomers start dying in greater numbers.   

Should L'Orange be holding press conferences?  I dunno.  That depends on your level of faith in the guy.  I understand his way of communication, particularly when he is bashing Democrats, is comforting and inspiring to some.  If he makes some people happy and comforts them, then by all means.

Its the nature of the 24/7 new/entertainment media to repeat. Anyone who is going to watch more then a hour of news a day is asking to be taken for a ride. Discernment on the viewer is required and most people aren't equipped.

As For L'Orange comforting and springing some (his base) by bashing the democrats and doing what he is accusing them of doing... he should keep his mouth shut. A leader of integrity might find away to speak to everyone but that not who that man is.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 02, 2020, 01:12:05 PM
It's possible that regular measures will be highly effective but we can remember what happened with Ebola when the CDC and others didn't understand how it was spread and kept insisting that the healthcare workers in Africa must not be using their gear properly because they kept getting infected and it was only after it came to America that we seemed to learn we underestimated how transmissible it was because our own healthcare workers did use their gear exactly as required but the gear itself was insufficient to prevent infection because it was to a limited extent airborne. I see the same types of dangerous assumptions being made here as far as thinking we understand how it is transmitted and having a handle on it when it's still too early for that.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 02, 2020, 01:16:14 PM
Quote
The only saving grace perhaps for Trump is that all the Democrats do is criticize. They haven't suggested anything that would be helpful.

That's a little misleading since Trump dismantled the pandemic infrastructure and canceled other programs that Obama had put in place.  The fact that there is much less to work with is no fault of the Democrats, who have called for putting professionals in charge of the team instead of the depressingly willfully blind Pence.

Quote
As for the Alabama story, it doesn't seem to have any responses from the HHS officials involved in the process.  I'm hesitant to buy all in on the unpreparedness theme if there is no other side of the story presented, and the side that is being presented is related to a small Alabama town where people are getting their info from Facebook and concerned about secret helicopters in the night and the virus being a bioweapon.  It sounds like the community had made up their minds already, and their public servants were going to further that opinion so they could keep their jobs.  Just another possible example of lack of leadership from American politicians.

You're behind the curve on this one.  HHS has canceled plans (https://www.thedailybeast.com/feds-scrap-plans-to-transfer-coronavirus-patients-to-alabama-after-backlash) to move patients to this facility due to the objections raised by the local leaders as well as Senator Shelby, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey and Alabama Rep. Bradley Byrne:

Quote
"I thanked him for his support of AL! We always want to help our fellow Americans, but this wasn't fully vetted," Ivey tweeted.
...
"I’m fighting to bring this to a full stop. Leave these people in the place they came to, don’t spread them around the US, and keep them OUT of Alabama," Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL) wrote on Twitter.

Scott F:
Quote
My hot water tank can serve as fresh water for a good two weeks. That’s my prep so far.

I fail to understand why people think they need to stock up on water.  Two things you should be able to rely on in your homes are power and water.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 03, 2020, 11:31:22 AM
Interesting twitter thread this morning. Pretty pathetic state of affairs re: testing in the Seattle area.


"I live in Seattle, I have all symptoms of COVID-19 and have a history of chronic bronchitis.

Since I work in a physical therapy clinic with many 65+ patients and those with chronic illnesses, I decided to be responsible and go to get tested. This is how that went."


https://twitter.com/into_the_brush/status/1234685467682979840
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on March 03, 2020, 11:48:14 AM
Interesting twitter thread this morning. Pretty pathetic state of affairs re: testing in the Seattle area.

I thought I told you guys about getting info from social media and Twitter.  Particularly from a non-verified account called "Sketchy lady". 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 03, 2020, 11:57:06 AM
If they could test I seriously wonder how many people have already had it and recovered. There is a test that tells if you've had it already. That would be very useful information. Our government is really dropping the ball on this. It's funny because I went through something over the last five weeks that fits the profile of C19, like this lady here, and I've been through flues before, many times, and I know how it goes but this was something unlike any other. Of course it could just be getting older and a different strain and it may well have been just the regular version or something else entirely but it would be nice to know. I wonder if you found out you already had it would that mean you've gotten some immunity to what's going around now until it mutates significantly. That would be a load off. Well at least I found out from this frustrated lady that there was nothing I could do about it anyway even if I wanted to.

Oh and yes I got the flu shot. I figure it's good for your immune system even if it doesn't happen to protect you that season. With all the sanitization everywhere our immune systems may not be getting the workout they should. I'm not sure if it's correct or not but it seems like the flu shot gives your immune system exposure to some things that help to strengthen it generally and not just specifically compared to living in a practically germ free bubble the way many of us do nowadays. For those who think everyone is just freaking out about what's in the news, perhaps, but then there is this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/02/covid-vaccine/607000/

"You’re Likely to Get the Coronavirus

Most cases are not life-threatening, which is also what makes the virus a historic challenge to contain."

The longer we wait on testing the less likely we are to get a good picture of not only what is happening now but what already happened, which may well be nothing but that would be good to know too.


Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: NobleHunter on March 03, 2020, 12:00:48 PM
The normal flu (Influenza A/B) is supposedly extra nasty this year.

Also worth noting that a lot of cold/flu symptoms are caused by the reaction of the immune system rather than the virus itself. A "strong" immune system could make things worse.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 03, 2020, 12:07:54 PM
As I understand it, there have been very few cases of COVID-19 in children and no deaths.  From my superficial observations, it appears to be more severe as the patients are older.  The youngest person that has died that I've heard of was 29.  I realize information is a bit anecdotal and sparse, so I'd appreciate it if anyone can update or contradict what I wrote.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 03, 2020, 12:14:05 PM
That's the thing though for now. Nobody is testing for it and often there are no symptoms. We could have only the hundred or so cases we know about in America or we could have thousands. The people who have died of the flu could have died of this instead and how would we know if they weren't tested? We really have no idea. This reminds me of Six Sigma a bit. We are at first stage. Define. We haven't even seriously begun the second stage which is to Measure. Without that accomplished there is no possible way to Analyze, Improve and Control.

"COVID-19 is already reported to have killed more than twice that number. With its potent mix of characteristics, this virus is unlike most that capture popular attention: It is deadly, but not too deadly. It makes people sick, but not in predictable, uniquely identifiable ways. Last week, 14 Americans tested positive on a cruise ship in Japan despite feeling fine—the new virus may be most dangerous because, it seems, it may sometimes cause no symptoms at all."
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 04, 2020, 09:00:57 AM
It's good to know Trump is in clear control of the coronavirus situation.  If you remember just a week ago Trump said only 15 people had contracted the disease and all were getting better and would be all better within a few days.  Since then 9 people have died from the virus.  By the time you read this message, it's likely the death toll will have gone up again.

Perhaps one of his worshippers here can explain to me the strategy behind the Stable Genius plan for combatting the virus.   
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 04, 2020, 09:38:50 AM
Trump needs to get out of the way and leave this to the professionals. And Mike Pence is not one of them. The CDC (Corona Distribution Company) has bungled it up to now too. Hopefully Trump will declare a state of emergency and start travel restrictions. The testing kits are ramping up on production now and should be out very soon. Then we do massive amounts of testing and see where we stand without letting people spread it all over the place in the meantime. I could see an airline bailout or compensation.  Putting people up there in flying incubators to continue transporting the virus around the country and around the world is the stupidest idea in the long stupid history of stupid ideas.  The masks need to catch on too. The Surgeon General's comment on them was ridiculous. I can see saying the medicos should take priority for now until there are enough for everyone but saying they are essentially useless for ordinary people is irresponsible. They will definitely help people who have the virus and don't know it from spreading it. Even with the N95s. And if they can ramp up production of improved masks that's even better. Trump has failed but the Democrats aren't any better. They seem more concerned with the appearance of racism than they are with stopping the spread of the virus which right now requires travel restrictions and restrictions on large gatherings which should of course be cancelled. The voluntary quarantine needs a hard look at too when you have people breaking it and going into large gatherings potentially spreading it and definitely causing more work for the CDC who then has to start keeping track of new clusters of people.

Of course a lot of that won't happen. Hopefully we're getting a less deadly strain.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 09:49:24 AM
Quote
Adams said that as a health-care worker, he has to get “fit tested” when wearing protective masks, and those who do not wear the masks properly tend to fidget with them or touch their faces — which “actually can increase the spread of coronavirus.”

Are you saying this is factually incorrect?

Quote
The only people who should be wearing masks are healthy people who are taking care of someone who is sick or sick people who are coughing or sneezing when they are in public, according to the World Health Organization.

Or this?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 04, 2020, 10:03:44 AM
I'm saying that if there is a church filled with thousands of people and some of them have this virus the church with everyone wearing a mask will have less people walk out of it infected at the end of the sermon than the church where nobody is wearing a mask. I think we just saw that in South Korea. Same thing with a crowded bus, or plane, or concert, or the supermarket, or in long lines for voting. Sure for some small segment of the population it might be counter-productive. Like seat belts.

Anything that keeps an infected person, who again doesn't know they are infected, from sneezing all over the place is an improvement. Even if the masks have micron levels too large to stop the virus itself if it stops the water droplets that the virus travels on from going as far that is a huge improvement. And yes sneezing into your elbow and sleeve is good too. Not everyone has caught onto that though, or they forget, or they aren't fast enough. They sneeze everywhere or into their hand and touch everything. Maybe Adrian Monk had the right idea on that, keep some sanitizing wipes in your pocket.

If the Surgeon General is trying to say that if the infected people in the South Korean church had been wearing masks it wouldn't have mattered and hundreds of others still would have gotten infected then that flies in the face of common sense. One sneeze from an infected person and it's game over. Hasn't everyone already seen the movie theater scene in Outbreak? Sure there is still touching and yes that's an issue too but the masks are going to help.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: NobleHunter on March 04, 2020, 10:16:40 AM
cherry, the first thing Drake quoted said masks can increase transmission. So more people walk out of the church or bus infected than if the person hadn't been wearing the mask.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 04, 2020, 10:21:52 AM
The point the CDC seems to miss is that you can spread it even if you aren't showing symptoms.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/health-experts-telling-healthy-people-140007777.html

"The CDC recommends surgical masks only for people who already show symptoms of coronavirus and must go outside..."

So if you have it you should wear a mask. Nobody knows who has it. Then who should wear a mask?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 10:21:58 AM
And then when people go to a potluck after their church service, are they all going to scrub their hands after handling their masks? That's the SG point about how people tend to fidget with them. The mask concentrates whatever they might have and helps transfer it to their hands. Are they going to dispose of them and replace them with fresh ones? If not, where are they putting them? In their purse? Pocket?

And maybe all that is fine and good if you have an unlimited supply. But when someone actually has flu-like symptoms, or someone in their family does, and all the masks have been sold to paranoid random healthy people, you have a problem.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 04, 2020, 10:23:48 AM
Okay well let's ask it this way then. If there is an unlimited supply then does that change things?

The Surgeon General confuses everything when he says that they should be saved for the medicos.

If the medicos have plenty then what?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 10:26:02 AM
Hierarchy of value

medics > people with confirmed with covid-19 > people with flu-like symptoms > people trained on mask use

And never untrained people, because that just leads to worse outcomes.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 04, 2020, 10:36:06 AM
"They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"

So the same mask can protect healthcare providers but it doesn't protect the public.

If it's because people don't know how to use them then it seems like it would make more sense to provide instructions just like you see in every restaurant a placard with Heimlich maneuver instructions. Surely the operation of a mask is not beyond the ability of people to learn if the same people are expected to be able to learn how to do the Heimlich maneuver.

As for me, I was trained as a reactor technician in the Navy. We learn how to assume our hazmat suits are contaminated with radiation including alpha radiation which you do not want to touch, and we are trained how to take them off while only touching the insides of the suits, the insides of the gloves, the insides of the mask, and to roll them up. It seems like there is a similar principle in play here and it would not be beyond my abilities to eventually master. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 10:44:01 AM
Let's recall we couldn't even train the general public to use the metric system, but it wasn't beyond you.

How many people do you think could correctly execute the heimlich based on the poster? Thing is, hanging the poster doesn't come with negative outcomes much, unless somebody bruises a rib - or someone who doesn't know what they are doing gets in the way of someone who does.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 10:48:41 AM
Meanwhile, you know what's more effective than wearing a mask to a giant church service? Not going to a giant church service.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 04, 2020, 10:59:31 AM
But you do have to go to the grocery store. So you go with your mask. You have a bunch of Clorox wipes at home. You get home, wash your hands, use a Clorox wipe to take off your mask, a washable type, throw it in the washer with your clothes and take a shower and you're done and done. And you don't touch your face while you're out. You wipe off stuff you touch while you're out with the little baggie of Clorox wipes you have in your pocket, Monk style. It doesn't seem like it's rocket science. The part that really doesn't make sense is when the Surgeon General says the exact same mask that won't protect you will protect medical personnel. Okay, yeah, if you are taking the mask and then turning it inside out to use as a blindfold later when you go to bed, sure, but if you have any common sense it's not that hard to figure out. I'd also be curious what the CDC equivalents in other countries are telling their own citizens and if it's the same advice ours is giving us.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 04, 2020, 11:31:56 AM
If people could be trained that easily, their dogs wouldn't kill anybody, and nobody would be accidentally shot.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 04, 2020, 11:54:11 AM
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks

   - Before putting on a mask, clean hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
   -  Cover mouth and nose with mask and make sure there are no gaps between your face and the mask.
   -  Avoid touching the mask while using it; if you do, clean your hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
   -  Replace the mask with a new one as soon as it is damp and do not re-use single-use masks.
   - To remove the mask: remove it from behind (do not touch the front of mask); discard immediately in a closed bin; clean hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.

They even have a nice short and sweet video to go with it.

That information from our Surgeon General would have been much more helpful.

As for all of the stuff about how the mask could be more dangerous, well that's only if it has coronavirus or flu or something dangerous on it. If you are just a regular person going about your day and you wouldn't have been exposed anyway then how is it going to hurt you? If that were the case then women wearing burkas and veils would have noticed it by now.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Grant on March 04, 2020, 11:55:14 AM
You're all pretty. 

First, I want to point out the contradiction of stating that Trump is screwing up and should let the experts handle things, then in the very next sentence, say that Trump needs to shut down travel because the experts at the CDC have screwed things up. 

Second, quit quoting stories about masks when we're generally talking about N95s. 

Third, N95 masks prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2.  That's why health care professionals use them.  Yes, if you're an idiot wearing a Santa Beard or if you don't pinch the little metal nose piece, it won't help as much.  Yes, if you don't use other precautions like hand washing it won't help at all.  Yes, if you're an idiot it won't help you.  But the good news is, if you're not an idiot, it will help.  The good news is, not wearing PPE properly only hurts idiots, not people who wear the PPE correctly.  If there are 100 people in the room, and 99 are wearing the N95 incorrectly, and don't use handwashing, they can all get the virus if exposed.  But that is no reason for the one person who does know how to use the equipment to not use it. 

I'm well aware of how stupid people are.  There are examples all around me.  I could have read something stupid this morning, though certainly not here.  But the idea that people should not buy child seats because so many are too stupid to strap them up, or that people should not buy guns because there is always some guy who wants to check if it is loaded by looking down the barrel and pulling the trigger, or you shouldn't buy a deep fryer because hundreds of people burn their houses down every year deep frying turkeys, is ridiculous.  We have to continue to move forward and be as safe as we can be regardless of idiots. 

Fourth, if you're not 50-60 years old or older, or if you don't have a respiratory problem, you probably don't need an N95 mask.  Guess what?  We're eventually all going to get this virus unless they make a vaccine.  It cannot be contained.  It can only be slowed.  So chill out and embrace the suck.  It's not the end of the world.  Yes, as many as 400,000 Americans could be killed by this thing this year.  That's no small number.  Yes, precautions need to be made. 

If you're sick, stay home. 
Wash your hands with alcohol based hand sanitizer.
Avoid touching your face.
Stay away from public transportation and large public gatherings.
Practice social distancing.
Watch out for your elderly friends and relatives.  Have an isolation plan.  Supplies.  Extra PPE.  Shutting down travel in the US is not going to happen so bunker down the most vulnerable. 

None of this is going to stop or contain the virus.  It will simply slow it down and hopefully keep our most vulnerable protected. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 12:07:00 PM
If you're not an idiot, you can probably decide for yourself no matter what the Surgeon General says. Maybe your sister is a nurse, or you've done your homework, or you knew someone who had a compromised immune system.

Clearly the public message is to stop morons from buying up supplies and using them in a worthless way.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 12:13:17 PM
Meanwhile....

Quote
The government of France is taking control of the stocks and production of surgical masks in the country in response to the coronavirus outbreak, Health Minister Olivier Véran announced today.

“Other than health professionals, contaminated people and vulnerable people, masks are not useful,” he said in the announcement.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 04, 2020, 01:19:42 PM
There is that concept again, "other than contaminated people". And that's the catch.

So if you know you don't have it then you don't need a mask. Who knows for sure they don't have it? Nobody. That's the whole point of asymptomatic super spreaders.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/27/what-are-super-spreaders-and-how-are-they-transmitting-coronavirus

Like Typhoid Mary.

And also just asymptomatic regular spreaders.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 04, 2020, 01:29:44 PM
And also just asymptomatic regular spreaders.

I agree, a real danger with how mild it seems to be in younger people. If this gets into schools its going everywhere. If kids represent with "normal cold" symptoms, runny nose, no fever, odds are parents are sending them onto school where everyone gets infected.

Right now the only measures we can take are to slow the spread while we try to get a working vaccine. Until there is a vaccine for this its going to simmer and spread, or potentially have a full break out and we either try to all self isolate/quarantine (sick or healthy) or accept it as a new risk that we just deal with like the flu or car accidents. If we're lucky warm temperatures actually slow the spread (like the flu). Anyone know yet if that's been confirmed that the virus breaks down faster in warm temperatures? 

Slowing the spread saves lives by simply not overwhelming the health care system. But it seems highly contagious and has a long incubation period which makes getting everyone potentially exposed isolated in time to avoid more spreading is virtually impossible.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 01:42:35 PM
There is that concept again, "other than contaminated people". And that's the catch.

So if you know you don't have it then you don't need a mask. Who knows for sure they don't have it? Nobody. That's the whole point of asymptomatic super spreaders.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/27/what-are-super-spreaders-and-how-are-they-transmitting-coronavirus

Like Typhoid Mary.

And also just asymptomatic regular spreaders.

So we take the available masks away from people with COPD or flu symptoms, and give them to people who feel fine because they might secretly have the covid?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 04, 2020, 02:15:52 PM
Well I'm operating on the assumption that there will be plenty of masks for everyone very shortly.

If the Surgeon General and the other experts want to say that when masks are in short supply then the medical personnel obviously need to have priority then that's fine; they should say that.

But to say that they won't help regular folks is absurd when they also say people should wear them if they have the virus and you can have the virus without knowing it or showing symptoms.

I just learned the term for it: cryptic transmission.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/genetic-analysis-suggests-coronavirus-infections-022607597.html
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 04, 2020, 02:33:38 PM
Quoted for truth!

You're all pretty. 

First, I want to point out the contradiction of stating that Trump is screwing up and should let the experts handle things, then in the very next sentence, say that Trump needs to shut down travel because the experts at the CDC have screwed things up. 

Second, quit quoting stories about masks when we're generally talking about N95s. 

Third, N95 masks prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2.  That's why health care professionals use them.  Yes, if you're an idiot wearing a Santa Beard or if you don't pinch the little metal nose piece, it won't help as much.  Yes, if you don't use other precautions like hand washing it won't help at all.  Yes, if you're an idiot it won't help you.  But the good news is, if you're not an idiot, it will help.  The good news is, not wearing PPE properly only hurts idiots, not people who wear the PPE correctly.  If there are 100 people in the room, and 99 are wearing the N95 incorrectly, and don't use handwashing, they can all get the virus if exposed.  But that is no reason for the one person who does know how to use the equipment to not use it. 

I'm well aware of how stupid people are.  There are examples all around me.  I could have read something stupid this morning, though certainly not here.  But the idea that people should not buy child seats because so many are too stupid to strap them up, or that people should not buy guns because there is always some guy who wants to check if it is loaded by looking down the barrel and pulling the trigger, or you shouldn't buy a deep fryer because hundreds of people burn their houses down every year deep frying turkeys, is ridiculous.  We have to continue to move forward and be as safe as we can be regardless of idiots. 

Fourth, if you're not 50-60 years old or older, or if you don't have a respiratory problem, you probably don't need an N95 mask.  Guess what?  We're eventually all going to get this virus unless they make a vaccine.  It cannot be contained.  It can only be slowed.  So chill out and embrace the suck.  It's not the end of the world.  Yes, as many as 400,000 Americans could be killed by this thing this year.  That's no small number.  Yes, precautions need to be made. 

If you're sick, stay home. 
Wash your hands with alcohol based hand sanitizer.
Avoid touching your face.
Stay away from public transportation and large public gatherings.
Practice social distancing.
Watch out for your elderly friends and relatives.  Have an isolation plan.  Supplies.  Extra PPE.  Shutting down travel in the US is not going to happen so bunker down the most vulnerable. 

None of this is going to stop or contain the virus.  It will simply slow it down and hopefully keep our most vulnerable protected.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 02:40:59 PM
So everybody should just be wearing masks all the time, because there are a lot of communicable diseases - including existing influenza, viral pneumonia, bronchitis : all of which are dangerous to the same group of people at risk of dying from covid19?

Is your sticking point really about semantics? So if the SG said, "Most people lack the training to properly use masks, which may actually increase their risk and risk to people around them. There is some value to people not belonging to a risk group, if properly trained, but believed to be marginal. Since masks are in short supply, we do not recommend that healthy people wear one unless they believe they may have been exposed to the virus."

Because the recommendation still stays the same, its just a lot of gibberish to go along with the message.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 02:51:30 PM
Well I'm operating on the assumption that there will be plenty of masks for everyone very shortly.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "very shortly".

Quote
The relentless whir of machines echoing across a cavernous French factory floor this week is an unexpected result of the deadly virus that has nearly paralyzed cities in China and other parts of Asia. The company, Kolmi Hopen, happens to make an item that is suddenly one of the world’s hottest commodities: the medical face mask.

The factory, in Angers, typically makes around 170 million masks a year, but in the last week orders arrived for a staggering half a billion, flooding the sales department’s inboxes at the rate of one every two minutes. Kolmi Hopen is racing to hire more workers to keep the machines running 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

“We’re making masks as fast as we can,” said Guillaume Laverdure, the chief operating officer of Kolmi Hopen’s parent company, Canada-based Medicom, as forklift drivers moved boxes of freshly finished masks into trucks.

“But demand is still rising,” he added.

The coronavirus outbreak has set off a run on protective masks across China and in other major cities. To curb the spread of the virus, the Chinese government has ordered citizens to don masks every time they go outside. Medical professionals say once used, a mask must be replaced with a fresh one, driving an explosion in demand. Grim scenes of people lined up for hours to get a protective face covering, only to be turned away when pharmacies run out, have become familiar.

So there's China, advocating just what you seem to be, and lining up for hours to get a mask that doesn't exist. I wonder - how much exposure is there when you're standing in a dense line for hours without any mask?

Meanwhile, demand has tripled and is rising. I wonder how many industries can sustain a tripling of production? What happens to the upstream raw materials? I don't have any first hand knowledge of exactly how hard it is to repurpose production lines at factories not making masks, but I suspect it isn't that simple.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 04, 2020, 02:56:08 PM
If your a health care worker or infected a mask makes sense otherwise not so much
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 04, 2020, 03:01:28 PM
I apologize but I'm going pick this nit one last time.

qft: "If you're sick, stay home."

The point with this thing that makes it so different is that people ARE sick but they have NO IDEA.   

I'll lay off it now. But it really is crucial. Even our own Surgeon General doesn't seem to understand it.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 04, 2020, 03:13:19 PM
They are just masks. They aren't being spun out of gold here.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/article240793216.html

"Electronics maker Sharp Corp. said Monday it will start making surgical masks, which are in high demand because of the virus outbreak, using a plant in central Japan that usually makes displays.

Sharp, owned by Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., also known as FoxConn, of Taiwan, said mask production at its Mie Prefecture plant will start by the end of this month, at 150,000 masks a day, rising to 500,000 a day.

Electronics displays are generally made in what are called “germ-free” plants for the sake of high quality. So small particles can't get into the manufacturing process, making it a good place for mask-making."

This would be part of emergency measures, having manufacturing plants that don't usually make masks repurposed to the task, and other tasks to help in containment.

The point is to slow this thing down until a vaccine arrives we're going to have to be willing to accept a new normal, and that will include masks and knowing how to use them properly. The alternatives are mass quarantines and travel restrictions or just  letting it spread by cryptic transmission.

It's a bit like in The Walking Dead. Spoiler Alert. How do you tell who is infected and who is not, who has the virus that causes them to rise as a walker after death and who would just stay dead? You don't. Everyone is infected. Well with this it isn't nearly that bad thank goodness but with no way to tell who is infected and who isn't, the only safe assumption is that everyone is infected so everyone has to wear a mask to keep from spreading it before they know they have it.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 03:13:25 PM
They are just masks. They aren't being spun out of gold here.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/article240793216.html

"Electronics maker Sharp Corp. said Monday it will start making surgical masks, which are in high demand because of the virus outbreak, using a plant in central Japan that usually makes displays.

Sharp, owned by Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., also known as FoxConn, of Taiwan, said mask production at its Mie Prefecture plant will start by the end of this month, at 150,000 masks a day, rising to 500,000 a day.

Electronics displays are generally made in what are called “germ-free” plants for the sake of high quality. So small particles can't get into the manufacturing process, making it a good place for mask-making."

This would be part of emergency measures, having manufacturing plants that don't usually make masks repurposed to the task, and other tasks to help in containment.

Good to know. Billions of masks would make most of this discussion moot. I'm not sure many electronics manufacturers are going to see a profit motive switching from cell phone displays to masks. It looks like Sharp is doing this because they see it as a public benefit or a PR opportunity.

By "having manufacturing plants" do you mean voluntarily?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 04, 2020, 03:20:29 PM
Well it may be that we'll have plenty enough soon enough with just the production being increased to meet demand. But if it came to it the government could ask for volunteers and if that didn't cut it I see it being within the Constitutional power of our government to force companies to make masks.

And I could be wrong on that.

Now they couldn't make the employees of the company do it but they could take over the equipment and have contractors or military personnel do it.

Has there ever been a case like that? Would it be like Reagan firing the striking air traffic controllers? Not quite. Any other cases closer? Maybe like a ship builder being forced to make warships instead of fishing trawlers.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 04, 2020, 03:23:55 PM
Has there ever been a case like that? Would it be like Reagan firing the striking air traffic controllers? Not quite. Any other cases closer? Maybe like a ship builder being forced to make warships instead of fishing trawlers.

Not sure how optional it was for GM to switch from cars to tanks in WWII. Any of our historians know how voluntary that transition was?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 04, 2020, 03:33:44 PM
This might come into play more with the vaccine that with the masks. It was even an episode of The West Wing.

If the government decides to give away the vaccine and pay the maker a lower price than what the maker thinks is fair and the maker refuses to make it or does make it but refuses to sell it especially with a lot of international demand, what rights does the government have then?

Or what rights does the company have?

I doubt it would come into play though. I would hope everyone is on the same page here. Plus our government is basically just making up money anyway and would gladly pay through the nose, taking the campaign contributions that come later on the back end with the usual quid pro quo and doing some insider trader on the side.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 04, 2020, 03:55:22 PM
Interesting thought about WW2. Indeed, there was the War Production Board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Production_Board) - basically like a command economy seen in communist countries? Maybe a little more light handed. It was created by executive order - national emergency anyone?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 05, 2020, 03:49:49 PM
FWIW, COVID-19 testing is covered under Medicare. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 06, 2020, 12:49:35 PM
Some common sense:

"Wuhan China has the highest concentration of Coronavirus. Out of a population of about 75-million, about 75-Thousand have gotten ill. So if you are in the epicenter there is only a 1-in-1000 chance you will get ill. Conclusion: You are probably not going to get Coronavirus."

"Of those who get Coronavirus, 80% experience nothing worse than the common cold. The remaining 20% will experience pneumonia-like symptoms and may require treatment or hospitalization. Conclusion: If you are the unlucky 1-in-a-thousand person who gets Coronavirus, it will probably be a 2-week illness and then you will be fine."

"Coronavirus kills roughly 1.4% of the people who contract it. This means it kills 14 people in 1-Million. Sounds bad, right? Well, the death rate is 14,000 people per million in any given year. So Coronavirus represents only a 0.1% increase in the natural death rate. Conclusion: The death rate from Coronavirus is so small that it is statistically insignificant."

"Most of the people who die from Coronavirus are those with weakened immune systems…persons who are already close to being included in the natural death statistics. Conclusion: Coronavirus is somewhat (slightly) accelerating the death of people who are near death; if you keep healthy the odds strongly suggest you will be just fine."

https://talkingpointz.com/coronavirus-get-over-it/
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 06, 2020, 01:07:54 PM
"Wuhan China has the highest concentration of Coronavirus. Out of a population of about 75-million, about 75-Thousand have gotten ill. So if you are in the epicenter there is only a 1-in-1000 chance you will get ill. Conclusion: You are probably not going to get Coronavirus."

True - however. 1-in-1000 got sick while China took the most draconian isolation/quarantine measures ever. So how we respond affects all of those numbers following. But yes I do think we're going to at some point have to accept that CV-19 is here to stay and it will circulate around the world seasonally like a more severe flu.

Flu kills about 50,000 per year in the US - and we can vaccinate the most vulnerable populations. Vaccination also slows the spread of flu by providing less people susceptible to being infected and spreading. CV-19 likely has a death rate 5-10 times as high. So if we just treat it like regular flu deaths (just in the US) due to flu+CV19 would probably range in the 100,000-500,000 per year. Should the world be freaking out as much as we are - probably not. Should health agencies and the public do as much as possible to slow its spread until we have a working vaccine, absolutely.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 06, 2020, 01:10:26 PM
Sorry the 50,000 number is not a typical year but a severe flu year in the US.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 06, 2020, 02:29:16 PM
Should health agencies and the public do as much as possible to slow its spread until we have a working vaccine, absolutely.

My company is considering closing our main office and having everyone work remotely (a lot of my customers have already done so). Everyone is more worried about covering their asses than thinking rationally.

We might be saying the same thing, but this should boil down to broad education efforts on common-sense measures that should always be practiced, not shutting offices and schools down.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 06, 2020, 02:36:16 PM
I guess I'm not willing to discard the elderly and those with respiratory and immune issues so casually.

If this thing takes hold and it's added to the regular flu and cold season every year we are looking at a mass culling of those people every year going forward.

I'd rather try drastic steps now to keep that from happening, if possible. It doesn't look like it's possible anymore but if a better quarantine had been put in place at the beginning it might have been.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 06, 2020, 02:43:21 PM
I guess I'm not willing to discard the elderly and those with respiratory and immune issues so casually.

If this thing takes hold and it's added to the regular flu and cold season every year we are looking at a mass culling of those people every year going forward.

I'd rather try drastic steps now to keep that from happening, if possible. It doesn't look like it's possible anymore but if a better quarantine had been put in place at the beginning it might have been.

I largely agree with this. We take big steps now to slow its progress and give the vaccine makes billions of dollars to get something ready ASAP. Panic isn't the right response but Washington shows how deadly this is in a nursing home. I wouldn't like to see that repeated across the country.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 06, 2020, 02:58:37 PM
That's the thing, I don't think this is stoppable and "slowing" won't work anyway. From the same article:

"vaccines usually take 5~10 years to be approved and need a minimum of 1~2 years to prove that they don’t cause more harm than good. Nothing is on the near-term horizon. We will eventually have an answer, but not this year and not next year. "

My guess is these shutdowns will last until the virus is ubiquitous, and then we'll return to some version of normal. I'm not downplaying the severity around the susceptible - that's my parents. But I'm not down with ineffective measures that feel correct in the moment but may damage more than help.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 06, 2020, 03:03:28 PM
Hand washing is one of the most effective prevention methods. Could some of that $8 billion go towards the development of a hands-free faucet that doesn't shut off once every second while you scrub? Or never start in the first place?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 06, 2020, 03:28:14 PM
3.4% Mortality Rate estimate by the World Health Organization (WHO) as of March 3 (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 06, 2020, 03:49:03 PM
Elon agrees with me.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1236029449042198528
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 06, 2020, 03:55:37 PM
It feels to me as if a tipping point has been tipped and everything were doing to slow it down well end up doing more harm then good.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 06, 2020, 04:16:59 PM
Doing more harm as in causing the virus to spread more or doing more harm as in economic?

That seems to be where we're at. Your money or your life. Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 23.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 06, 2020, 04:38:15 PM
Quote
Doing more harm as in causing the virus to spread more or doing more harm as in economic?
That seems to be where we're at. Your money or your life.

If the tipping point has been tipped the virus is gong to spread regardless of what we do so I wonder if maybe we should just get it over with.


That said a 3% death rate would overwhelm the health system and a severe economic down turn... It doesn't look like we are going to be able to avoid both and its possible a severe economic downturn would involve even greater loss of life.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 06, 2020, 05:05:35 PM
As mentioned previously... there are known and expected benefits in slowing down the spread of the virus.

#1 not overwhelming the medical system by spreading out those requiring treatment across a longer period of time.
#2 it is likely that transmission rates will fall as temperatures rise in the northern hemisphere.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 06, 2020, 07:40:25 PM
Doing more harm as in causing the virus to spread more or doing more harm as in economic?

That seems to be where we're at. Your money or your life. Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 23.

Both in a lot of ways, economic harm is likely to have far more lasting impacts on the lives of the rest of the human population vs simply getting it over with.

That said, I do think trying to slow it down for another couple of weeks is a good idea, but if they're still trying come the end of the month, they're trying to push a boulder uphill, without mechanical assistance.

Edit: Which isn't to mention, if nothing else, it gives various agencies to learn what works and doesn't work for containment strategies going forward. Better to learn from this one than write it off right now and leave those lessons to be discovered after the fact with something far more deadly.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 07, 2020, 06:28:31 AM
It feels to me as if a tipping point has been tipped and everything were doing to slow it down well end up doing more harm then good.

I'm not sure where you're seeing the tipping point.  The number of cases being reported is accelerating in the US and is climbing steadily in several other countries.  The reported 3.4% fatality rate is probably high, but is an indicator that there are far more cases that haven't yet been detected.  The death rate will (likely) decline when we have a better accounting of how many people have been infected.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 07, 2020, 08:36:11 AM
I guess I'm not willing to discard the elderly and those with respiratory and immune issues so casually.

If this thing takes hold and it's added to the regular flu and cold season every year we are looking at a mass culling of those people every year going forward.

I'd rather try drastic steps now to keep that from happening, if possible. It doesn't look like it's possible anymore but if a better quarantine had been put in place at the beginning it might have been.

I largely agree with this. We take big steps now to slow its progress and give the vaccine makes billions of dollars to get something ready ASAP. Panic isn't the right response but Washington shows how deadly this is in a nursing home. I wouldn't like to see that repeated across the country.

Panic isn’t the right response but it is the preferred response. Th greater the hysteria and overreaction, the greater the economic impact, the better it gets for Democrats.

Bill Maher famously voiced the left’s desire for a recession in order to take down Trump. This may be what turns the dream into reality. If the media and the left (but I repeat myself) can spin up the hysteria levels sufficiently, it might work. That’s why the NYT wants everyone to call it the “Trump Virus”.

Case in point, fatality rate. With an estimated 20% to 50% of cases never being recognized, the fatality rate sounds really bad. But they report it endlessly anyway and rarely or never mention it’s certainly not as bad as they make out.

At this point, the hysteria machine is far more dangerous than the virus. See the video of people fighting over toilet paper...

I know a few of you are going to embrace the logical fallacy and insist on a false dichotomy that I must join the hysteria or I’m completely dismissing any risks but that’s not true. There is a middle ground where just purchasing a few extra items when you go to the store, washing your hands, don’t pick your nose, etc will be sufficient to address the infection for at least 80% of us.

If you’re over 80 years old or have other health issues that would put you at risk, you may consider taking more aggressive steps.

Of course, if you’re really worried, we could close the border. Anybody notice how that’s not a way to control the spread of this? People are crapping their pants about events like SXSW with people coming from all over but talk about actually doing the most common sense thing and stopping the uncontrolled flow of illegal immigration is not a part of the discussion.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 07, 2020, 11:58:04 AM
“... would make covid-19 closer in lethality to influenza in severe or pandemic flu seasons according to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine co-authored by Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The article states that the true fatality rate of covid-19 “may be considerably less” than 1 percent, and “may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 07, 2020, 03:48:18 PM
Welllll... our government is about to seriously up the ante: considering that we are at 5883 total cases (5061 currently infected, about half in home quarantine and half in hospital care, plus 589 cured and 233 dead), with a doubling time of 2,6 days even with current measures, government is about to follow WHO recommendations and move to a higher level.

Later in the night, according to the draft that have already been published, should come out a new decree that put in quarantine like the previous lock down zone all of Lombardy plus other 11 cities (including mine).
 
This means travel between cities will be forbidden in all but special approved cases, all gatherings for any reason forbidden (including mass, marriages, funerals and so on), all public activities (museums, cinema, spas, beauty parlors etc.) closed, bar and restaurants can remain open only on condition that they can enforce a strict 1m minimum distance between customers, supermarkets will have reduced opening time to allow for better sanitization of the environment, and schools will remain closed at least the whole march, then we will see...

They have issued 20k new job opening for medical professional, including opening the chance for retired professionals to come back to work, and of course blocked any vacations or time off for them till emergency is over.

Oh, and we are taking these measures without the issue of having a November election campaign, and doing this notwithstanding an economy that *will* suffer a lot as a consequence, so...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 07, 2020, 08:19:01 PM
“... would make covid-19 closer in lethality to influenza in severe or pandemic flu seasons according to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine co-authored by Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The article states that the true fatality rate of covid-19 “may be considerably less” than 1 percent, and “may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”

It's too early to play "Beat the Reaper" with coronavirus.  But here's another creative way to keep the death toll down:

Quote
"I would rather because I like the numbers being where they are. I don't need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn't our fault," Trump continued.

"And it wasn't the fault of the people on the ship either," Trump added. "It wasn't their fault either and they're mostly Americans, so I can live either way with it. I'd rather have them stay on but I fully understand if they'd rather take them off. I gave them the authority to make the decision."

So, he'd rather the Americans stay on board a ship that is the worst possible place to quarantine them just so "the numbers [don't] double".  He doesn't seem to understand that Americans who die are counted as Americans who die, and that every person who dies can have their infection traced back to the source in China.  Who is he trying to bluff here?

Somebody come to his defense.  I know you're here.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 08, 2020, 11:43:26 AM
A blog post from one of the doctors working on the front line in one of the hospitals near the first hot spots: its translated with google translate, but seems a decent enough one...

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=it&tab=TT&authuser=0&sl=it&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecodibergamo.it%2Fstories%2Fbergamo-citta%2Fcon-le-nostre-azioni-influenziamola-vita-e-la-morte-di-molte-persone_1344030_11%2F
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 08, 2020, 12:38:23 PM
Absolutely chilling.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 08, 2020, 02:15:07 PM
Meanwhile, the common flu causes up to 5 million cases of severe illness worldwide and kills up to 650,000 people every year, according to the World Health Organization.

Quote
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that so far this season, there have been at least 15 million flu illnesses for the 2019-2020 season, 140,000 hospitalizations and 8,200 deaths in the U.S. The CDC reports there have been 54 reported flu-related pediatric deaths this season from Influenza B viruses.

Nobody freaked out, no hysteria. Barely a blurb on the news, if even that.

Coronavirus, 20 deaths in the US, under 4,000 globally. MASS HYSTERIA. Orange man bad!  Close everything down! “But muh Trump!”, shout the NPC’s.

TDS has made way too many people completely irrational.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 08, 2020, 02:31:13 PM
Quote
Meanwhile, the common flu causes up to 5 million cases of severe illness worldwide and kills up to 650,000 people every year, according to the World Health Organization.

Note that the WHO estimates the total number of deaths to be between 290,000 and 650,000, so you cherry-picked the top end of their range without qualifying it.

Quote
Nobody freaked out, no hysteria. Barely a blurb on the news, if even that.

According to the CDC the 2018-2019 flu season was the longest on record, lasting 21 weeks.  We're about 4-10 weeks into the coronavirus infection cycle globally and the disease has no natural vector in the US.  In other words it is being imported into the US, is gaining a foothold and will spread dramatically.  Comparing its progress against any of the 4 flu varieties is therefore irrelevant.  Let's wait until the disease hits full force and begins to decline before passing any sort of judgment on its infection rate and severity.

Quote
MASS HYSTERIA. Orange man bad!  Close everything down! “But muh Trump!”, shout the NPC’s.

I'm assuming you don't think taking any precautions is a good idea.  Using "NPC" puts you firmly in the camp of virulent anti-liberal Trumpies.  That's not a fatal virus, but it's very unhealthy.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 08, 2020, 02:51:23 PM
Quote
Coronavirus, 20 deaths in the US, under 4,000 globally. MASS HYSTERIA. Orange man bad!  Close everything down! “But muh Trump!”, shout the NPC’s.

TDS has made way too many people completely irrational.

I would like to point out that my country and my national healthcare system behaviors and strategies in front of this pandemic are very  much not related at all to Trump and his re-election or not, as we've frankly our own problems to deal with.

The WHO recommendations and the strategies that are being considered by all the world governments are also not related to Trump at all, and believe me, I doubt there is a single government around the world that is eager to sink their own economy, so if the professionals are adopting these strategies, and the governments are enacting them knowing that they will be wildly unpopular, I would be careful before dismissing all their concerns as panic and stupidity.

The testimony of that doctor I linked tell firsthand about the practical difference between this virus and the flu: those differences are not trivial, and its for professionals to judge them, also because it will be those professionals job to deal with the consequences.

And if you want to know what a geometric progression looks like, compared to yesterday evening 5883 cases and 233 dead, we are today at 7375, with 366 dead, this in about two weeks since the recognition of the actual outbreak.

There are panicky behaviors, like those women that fought for toilet paper in Australia, the people cramming in queues to enter supermarkets, the people that at the announcement of the lock down jumped on crowded trains to escape the lock down zones, and there are sensible countermeasures to flatten the curve, don't overload the hospitals with a peak and try to earn some time for the doctors to do their job, that you can essentially sum up as "quarantine everything that can be quarantined".

Please don't mix the two things and think that's all about Trump.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 08, 2020, 03:13:04 PM
Buona fortuna e salute a tutti voi!
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 08, 2020, 03:18:13 PM
Buona fortuna e salute a tutti voi!
Grazie!  :)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 08, 2020, 10:04:41 PM
A really good write up on Corona Virus at Arstechica

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/dont-panic-the-comprehensive-ars-technica-guide-to-the-coronavirus/

Explains the reasoning for not wearing masks by people who aren't sick, etc.

I have some quibbles with it, but this is probably the best writeup I've seen.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 09, 2020, 07:23:55 AM
What quibbles? I think what they say makes sense.

I'll also throw in that the hand-washing thing is not as effective as the authorities want you to believe, even though it's still a good idea.  If you bring home a bag of food, for example, or were using your phone while you were out, then any germs that would be on your hands could have been transferred to those things.  If you wash your hands when you get home, then pick up the bag to empty it or check your phone, you may have touched infected surfaces.  The same is true for the clothes you were wearing on your outing.  Etc., etc.  There are so many ways that we don't "isolate" our bodies that taking a few precautions only somewhat lessens the risk of exposure and infection, but doesn't eliminate it.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 09, 2020, 07:30:28 AM
What quibbles? I think what they say makes sense.

I'll also throw in that the hand-washing thing is not as effective as the authorities want you to believe, even though it's still a good idea.  If you bring home a bag of food, for example, or were using your phone while you were out, then any germs that would be on your hands could have been transferred to those things.  If you wash your hands when you get home, then pick up the bag to empty it or check your phone, you may have touched infected surfaces.  The same is true for the clothes you were wearing on your outing.  Etc., etc.  There are so many ways that we don't "isolate" our bodies that taking a few precautions only somewhat lessens the risk of exposure and infection, but doesn't eliminate it.

Pretty much, washing your hands, only to pick up your phone, which you didn't sanitize, likely puts you back at square 1. Even then, sanitizing your phone, only to put it back in your pocket, or wherever it normally resides, is likely to put it right back in a unsanitary state as well. Sterilizing things, and keeping them sterile, is difficult at the best of times. Trying to do so at a sink in a public restroom? Good luck.

Washing your hands does still result in a reduction in the total number of germs on your hands, and the medium those germs need to thrive, so it isn't completely futile, but it isn't the full story either.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 09, 2020, 08:01:10 AM
I don't have a good idea how to make it happen, but we need to take into account the mortality rate of COVID-19 based on age groups (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/).  The forum software doesn't support tables, so here's a poor man's reproduction of that site's statistics. My takeaway is that this is clearly an age-risk related illness.

If you are under 50 years old, you don't need to take extraordinary precautions, but everyone under 50 should minimize or avoid contact with people over that age.  Those over 50 (I'm in the 8% group) should "self-isolate" or at least take extra precautions.   

AGE.........................DEATH RATE all cases
80+ years old...........14.8%
70-79 years old..........8.0%
60-69 years old..........3.6%
50-59 years old..........1.3%
40-49 years old..........0.4%
30-39 years old..........0.2%
20-29 years old..........0.2%
10-19 years old..........0.2%
0-9 years old.............no fatalities
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 09, 2020, 01:27:58 PM
Quote
The same is true for the clothes you were wearing on your outing

I was watching a episode of Real time with Bill Maher and he was talking about not shaking hands anymore and stuff
Then when a quest come on he bowed and touched them on the the upper arm right were your would cough... totally unaware... funniest thing I ever saw on his show.


Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 09, 2020, 03:51:04 PM
Hey, Crunch, you think Mr. Ed is a stable genius.  I'm not one myself, but maybe you put yourself in that category with him and can explain what he's saying in response to a reporter's question about whether he still thinks shutting down the White House global health security unit was a good idea.

Quote
"I just think this is something, Peter, that you can never really think is going to happen. You know, who -- I've heard all about, 'This could be...' -- you know, 'This could be a big deal,' from before it happened. You know, this -- something like this could happen.... Who would have thought? Look, how long ago is it? Six, seven, eight weeks ago -- who would have thought we would even be having the subject? ... You never really know when something like this is going to strike and what it's going to be."

It makes me wonder if he really is as smart as Mr. Ed after all.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 09, 2020, 06:14:45 PM
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Mr Ed?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 09, 2020, 06:19:08 PM
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Mr Ed?

Until Trump, Mr. Ed was the only stable genius I knew of.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 09, 2020, 06:19:55 PM
Always with the purpose of providing a preview of what will happen a bit everywhere, well, that's it: now they've put in lock down all of Italy.

Today numbers are 9172 infected and 463 dead. The percentages of serious cases are starting to climb dramatically, but in practice in the past few days they have stopped doing carpet testing and are only testing people that go to hospitals with strong symptoms, for people that have only light symptoms they simply recommend self-quarantine and self-care, so likely the total number of real infected is much higher.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 09, 2020, 06:22:40 PM
Not to one-up you, but the US is far behind Italy in testing, reporting and taking effective action.  I predict (sadly) that the outbreak in the US will be far worse than any other country in the world.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 09, 2020, 06:25:14 PM
Quote
Coronavirus, 20 deaths in the US, under 4,000 globally. MASS HYSTERIA. Orange man bad!  Close everything down! “But muh Trump!”, shout the NPC’s.

TDS has made way too many people completely irrational.

I would like to point out that my country and my national healthcare system behaviors and strategies in front of this pandemic are very  much not related at all to Trump and his re-election or not, as we've frankly our own problems to deal with.

The WHO recommendations and the strategies that are being considered by all the world governments are also not related to Trump at all, and believe me, I doubt there is a single government around the world that is eager to sink their own economy, so if the professionals are adopting these strategies, and the governments are enacting them knowing that they will be wildly unpopular, I would be careful before dismissing all their concerns as panic and stupidity.

The testimony of that doctor I linked tell firsthand about the practical difference between this virus and the flu: those differences are not trivial, and its for professionals to judge them, also because it will be those professionals job to deal with the consequences.

And if you want to know what a geometric progression looks like, compared to yesterday evening 5883 cases and 233 dead, we are today at 7375, with 366 dead, this in about two weeks since the recognition of the actual outbreak.

There are panicky behaviors, like those women that fought for toilet paper in Australia, the people cramming in queues to enter supermarkets, the people that at the announcement of the lock down jumped on crowded trains to escape the lock down zones, and there are sensible countermeasures to flatten the curve, don't overload the hospitals with a peak and try to earn some time for the doctors to do their job, that you can essentially sum up as "quarantine everything that can be quarantined".

Please don't mix the two things and think that's all about Trump.

But mixing what’s going on in your country with what’s going on in the US is totally reasonable. Ever think that may, just maybe, the US media has a different agenda that your government? Maybe the media sees a benefit to driving hysteria that the WHO doesn’t share? Or, is the US media reporting everything exactly the same as what’s being reported by you government?

I can, and did, point to places where Democrat pundits expressed a desire to see the US economy to enter recession.

Maybe what’s going on in your corner of the world is different than what’s happening in the US. I suggest you consider that.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 09, 2020, 06:39:35 PM
Quote
I can, and did, point to places where Democrat pundits expressed a desire to see the US economy to enter recession.

It's confounding, depressing and frankly weird that you think a fatal disease is somehow created and spread by propaganda.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 09, 2020, 06:41:57 PM
I don't have a good idea how to make it happen, but we need to take into account the mortality rate of COVID-19 based on age groups (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/).  The forum software doesn't support tables, so here's a poor man's reproduction of that site's statistics. My takeaway is that this is clearly an age-risk related illness.

If you are under 50 years old, you don't need to take extraordinary precautions, but everyone under 50 should minimize or avoid contact with people over that age.  Those over 50 (I'm in the 8% group) should "self-isolate" or at least take extra precautions.   

AGE.........................DEATH RATE all cases
80+ years old...........14.8%
70-79 years old..........8.0%
60-69 years old..........3.6%
50-59 years old..........1.3%
40-49 years old..........0.4%
30-39 years old..........0.2%
20-29 years old..........0.2%
10-19 years old..........0.2%
0-9 years old.............no fatalities

These numbers are based on confirmed cases. Only if you have been actually diagnosed does the case get put into this calculation. Many cases have not met test criteria. Consequently, these numbers are significantly off.

Estimates I’ve seen are that there may be 20% - 80% more infected. The range is huge beTheir symptoms are often nonexistent or so light they don’t get tested or treated. Just split the difference and say 50%, that would be a huge shift in fatality rates.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 09, 2020, 06:43:12 PM
It's confounding, depressing and frankly weird that you think a fatal disease is somehow created and spread by propaganda.

It’s even weirder and, frankly, stupid beyond words, that you believe anyone thinks that. It’s pure TDS.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 09, 2020, 08:07:15 PM
Not to one-up you, but the US is far behind Italy in testing, reporting and taking effective action.  I predict (sadly) that the outbreak in the US will be far worse than any other country in the world.

There are only 3 countries on the planet who even have the capability for it to be "worse" for them in total, one of is the origin for the virus(China), one is on the Equator so has the environment working to help suppress it(Indonesia), and the final one is India.

We're the 4th most populous nation on the planet. Of course the number of people impacted in the US is going to be worse than almost anywhere else.

I also suspect China's numbers will be worse in reality, although what they report will likely be another matter.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 09, 2020, 08:10:13 PM
Quote
I can, and did, point to places where Democrat pundits expressed a desire to see the US economy to enter recession.

It's confounding, depressing and frankly weird that you think a fatal disease is somehow created and spread by propaganda.

Not what he claimed. Also remember a number of Democrats are completely all-in on the early-Obama Admin expression "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste" and they know a sour economy favors the challenger. Plenty of Democratic operatives and backers would be more than happy to use this outbreak as an excuse to tank to economy in order to improve the chances of ousting Trump.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 09, 2020, 08:11:01 PM
It's confounding, depressing and frankly weird that you think a fatal disease is somehow created and spread by propaganda.

It’s even weirder and, frankly, stupid beyond words, that you believe anyone thinks that. It’s pure TDS.

Ok, you said it quite clearly:

Quote
Ever think that may, just maybe, the US media has a different agenda that your government? Maybe the media sees a benefit to driving hysteria that the WHO doesn’t share? Or, is the US media reporting everything exactly the same as what’s being reported by you government?

I can, and did, point to places where Democrat pundits expressed a desire to see the US economy to enter recession.

Did someone write that post for you and not tell you they were doing it?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 09, 2020, 11:21:32 PM
I don't have a good idea how to make it happen, but we need to take into account the mortality rate of COVID-19 based on age groups (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/).  The forum software doesn't support tables, so here's a poor man's reproduction of that site's statistics. My takeaway is that this is clearly an age-risk related illness.

If you are under 50 years old, you don't need to take extraordinary precautions, but everyone under 50 should minimize or avoid contact with people over that age.  Those over 50 (I'm in the 8% group) should "self-isolate" or at least take extra precautions.   

AGE.........................DEATH RATE all cases
80+ years old...........14.8%
70-79 years old..........8.0%
60-69 years old..........3.6%
50-59 years old..........1.3%
40-49 years old..........0.4%
30-39 years old..........0.2%
20-29 years old..........0.2%
10-19 years old..........0.2%
0-9 years old.............no fatalities

These numbers are based on confirmed cases. Only if you have been actually diagnosed does the case get put into this calculation. Many cases have not met test criteria. Consequently, these numbers are significantly off.

Estimates I’ve seen are that there may be 20% - 80% more infected. The range is huge beTheir symptoms are often nonexistent or so light they don’t get tested or treated. Just split the difference and say 50%, that would be a huge shift in fatality rates.

The chart is valid; but as most statistics are like a bikini. What it reveals is interesting, but what it conceals is absolutely essential. It is not the age which is the main demographic - but underlying medical issues that make an individual susceptible. Since that susceptibility is often age-related, the chart makes a left-handed kind of sense.

Now if the young are immune, even if medically challenged, then there is something to drive research to find out why.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 10, 2020, 07:03:13 AM
A bunch of interesting links I've found:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32104915

Even if it is quite speculative yet, apparently it can spread to the central nervous system, and this may be why it's so lethal for some people.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2930522-5/fulltext

The editorial of The Lancet regarding world governments tackling of the virus

https://www.thelancet.com/coronavirus

More in general, the same journal collection of medical articles on the virus is quite interesting, at least for people with some patience and some understanding of medical terminology (it's aimed at professionals, so it may be misleading for laypersons).

https://xkcd.com/2278/

Lastly, the last xkcd strip is quite apropos (not only of the coronavirus situation, mind you, but this is the current hot topic...)

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 10, 2020, 07:38:23 AM
It's confounding, depressing and frankly weird that you think a fatal disease is somehow created and spread by propaganda.

It’s even weirder and, frankly, stupid beyond words, that you believe anyone thinks that. It’s pure TDS.

Ok, you said it quite clearly:

Quote
Ever think that may, just maybe, the US media has a different agenda that your government? Maybe the media sees a benefit to driving hysteria that the WHO doesn’t share? Or, is the US media reporting everything exactly the same as what’s being reported by you government?

I can, and did, point to places where Democrat pundits expressed a desire to see the US economy to enter recession.

Did someone write that post for you and not tell you they were doing it?

Not only is that not right, it’s not even wrong. You’re just making things up now m
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 10, 2020, 07:44:05 AM
Quote
Not only is that not right, it’s not even wrong.

I already used that Pauli quote.  Have someone find your own.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 10, 2020, 10:44:39 AM
Quote
Ever think that may, just maybe, the US media has a different agenda that your government? Maybe the media sees a benefit to driving hysteria that the WHO doesn’t share?

Is their such a thing as MDS - media derangement syndrome
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 10, 2020, 10:57:00 AM
Quote
Ever think that may, just maybe, the US media has a different agenda that your government? Maybe the media sees a benefit to driving hysteria that the WHO doesn’t share?

Is their such a thing as MDS - media derangement syndrome

You have to admit the democrats and deep state are really powerful. So powerful they got China and Italy to lock down entire regions and cities. I mean these people caused the entire 2007 financial crisis by tanking one real estate project in Vegas. "They" know exactly the levers to push to get massively outsized results. How can Trump hope to compete with such nefarious monsters, especially all the ones that used to be in his cabinet and senior staff. "They" waited all this time to plunge the whole world into a recession and kill thousands of people with a disease outbreak timed perfectly to hurt Trump in the 2020 election. "They" are evil incarnate, grand chess masters, manipulating and controlling all the media, and "they" picked JOE "which one of these women is my wife" BIDEN for Trump's opponent in the 2020 election!

<end satire - This tag is deemed necessary as satire becomes harder to distinguish>

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 10, 2020, 11:16:09 AM
Quote
<end satire - This tag is deemed necessary as satire becomes harder to distinguish>

Oh, satire!  I'm so gullible.  Until the other day I was thinking when Crunch said TDS he was talking about Total Dissolved Solids. My bad!
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 10, 2020, 11:27:15 AM
Quote
<end satire - This tag is deemed necessary as satire becomes harder to distinguish>

Oh, satire!  I'm so gullible.  Until the other day I was thinking when Crunch said TDS he was talking about Total Dissolved Solids. My bad!

Honestly as absurd as some of those were - a number of the claims are pretty close to what fringe right-wing media is saying. People familiar with my views/posting history are likely to view that as satire - but the same post from an anonymous user or maybe even some of our members might not have been easily identifiable as satire.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 10, 2020, 11:28:25 AM
You only have to deconstruct to know the difference.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 10, 2020, 11:35:14 AM
You only have to deconstruct to know the difference.

Point conceded, our posters would have been able to identify the difference without stating the obvious.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 10, 2020, 11:37:41 AM
You only have to deconstruct to know the difference.

Point conceded, our posters would have been able to identify the difference without stating the obvious.

I'm hoping people will catch on when I do the same (which I did in your post) :).
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 10, 2020, 11:49:19 AM
Remember how political disagreements tore families and friends and households apart.

Just imagine if you disagreed on the seriousness of this virus.

What if some people in a household thought it was hype and others though it was very serious.

Some thought it was fine to go about their business, go to church, the gym, clubs, out to dinner and everything the same as before while others, older and more vulnerable with health issues perhaps, decided it would be best to self-quarantine until the fog of war lifts.

So the ones going out and about say you do you. You live your life how you want and I'll live mine as I please. The quarantiners say but if you bring it back you could make me very ill or maybe even get me killed.

I wonder if that's happening at all.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 10, 2020, 11:56:25 AM
Like many big issues, opinions on the virus don't need to be binary ie. hype vs very serious. They're not mutually exclusive.

I believe it's a very serious threat, and that it's being over-hyped.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 10, 2020, 12:00:18 PM
Quote
I wonder if that's happening at all.

If it's not already happening, it will.  Good post, btw.

Quote
I believe it's a very serious threat, and that it's being over-hyped.

It's too early to tell if it is or isn't.  Personally, I think we're late to the game to head it off without it becoming a major health problem in this country.  We should have acted sooner and been smarter.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 10, 2020, 12:01:12 PM
I'm having those conversations now. My ex works for a company with a cluster of infections. Our children go back and forth between our homes. I'm taking measures to try to avoid contact with grandparents and make sure not to expose other people in high risk groups. Identifying symptoms* is going to be hard as allergy season kicks into high gear. I'm really hoping higher temps limit the spread of CV-19 like they do with the flu. Without weather aided control this thing looks like its going to get bad.

*Particularly in children sense thankfully the disease is most often mild in children.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 10, 2020, 01:54:22 PM
A small side note, although I know the US, or at least a large part of it, views its prison system in a somewhat different optic that may lead to perceive this as a minor problem.

Prisons by their very nature are a natural breeding ground for this kind of disease: closed spaces, crowding, difficult hygiene, naturally undisciplined characters, often compromised immune systems due to drug use etc. etc.

Here, recognizing this, special measures started to be introduced to put the prisons on an extra lock out, by completely suspending relative visits from outside and introducing a lot of extra strict measures.
This, combined with the panic for the incoming virus, have lead to a wave of prison revolts: there have been already about 20 inmates revolts in so many prisons, with many tens of dead (precise numbers yet to be made public, and many revolts are still ongoing) and even a couple of escapees (it does not help that our prisons have a 120% rate of overcrowding... 60k prisoners against 50k official places, but this is a different matter).

Anyway, as my usual update, we are at 10.149 infected and 631 dead, 168 more than yesterday.
There is a fall of the official numbers of new infected, but as i anticipated yesterday they are progressively stopping tests of the asymptomatic or even lightly symptomatic, if there aren't special reasons like professionals that have still to move: doctors,policemen, supplies delivery drivers, politicians, etc. etc.

If you are a normal citizen, presents light symptoms or have suspects you may have been in contact with an infected, but don't have more than 37,5°C (99,5 F, according to google) plus difficulties breathing, they simply tell you to close yourself in your home and stay quarantined till you either improve or worsen (minimum 14 days).

Oh, by the way: Lombardy region president asked the central government to introduce special even more strict rules for his region.
As the original hot spot, they are the most heavily hit, and their healthcare system is quickly overloading as the doctor themselves fall ill.
Anyway, the step they requested is to impose the closure of all shops apart for select grocery stores and pharmacies, and all offices.

We will see what will happens... even if they still send the occasional snide remark, all politicians both government and opposition are being quite unusually civil: it feels quite strange, honestly, and its more than a bit scary! :-p

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 10, 2020, 02:04:00 PM
Fizz, thanks for the updates.  We can't see what's happening there with any more clarity that we can see what's happening here.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 10, 2020, 03:13:18 PM
I think of it as providing a preview of things to come.
Also, lurking here, I got often the impression that many people do not exactly know much or have some weird ideas about what goes on outside your borders.
I try to stay out of your politic discussions because as a foreigner with only indirect knowledge and different cultural framework its not my place to intervene usually (on the contrary, I come here to get a better understanding on what normal Americans thinks about these topics, compared from what one can evince from media and news), but when the discussion steer on topics I can offer a different external point of view or direct knowledge, if I've time I'm glad to.
And in these days, with the self quarantine in act, I've more time than usual! :-p

Btw, a small curio about a group of... well... my vocabulary is too limited to find a non vulgar singular word to sum up what they are:
https://www.thecut.com/2020/03/smurfs-gather-in-france-break-world-record-amid-coronavirus.html
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 10, 2020, 03:29:23 PM
I've noticed some people like this who say they aren't worried because they are young and it would be better to just let it run it's course sooner rather than later. Spoiler Alert for The Last Ship. They are like the Immunes in that tv series who purposefully spread the virus because it doesn't affect them and they figure if the susceptible die off it'll be better for the rest of humanity that survives because it would cull out the weak links in the human chain. I bet there are some very dangerous people who will try to spread it on purpose. Not saying these people are those but with their attitude it may amount to the same difference.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 10, 2020, 03:35:28 PM
Quote
I believe it's a very serious threat, and that it's being over-hyped.

It's too early to tell if it is or isn't.  Personally, I think we're late to the game to head it off without it becoming a major health problem in this country.  We should have acted sooner and been smarter.

The thing here is, late to the game or not, the only way to have stopped this would have been to basically lock down anyone coming from China at the end of December, and keep them quarantined for 2 to 3 weeks, while keeping China under lockdown until things run their course there, which it still hasn't--3 months later.

The virus is a serious threat, people will die from it, but people die from a lot of other "preventable" things too. We're rapidly reaching diminishing returns on the countermeasures being employed, the virus is obviously outside of their containment at this point as it is obviously in the general population here in the US.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 10, 2020, 03:53:40 PM
I've noticed some people like this who say they aren't worried because they are young and it would be better to just let it run it's course sooner rather than later. Spoiler Alert for The Last Ship. They are like the Immunes in that tv series who purposefully spread the virus because it doesn't affect them and they figure if the susceptible die off it'll be better for the rest of humanity that survives because it would cull out the weak links in the human chain. I bet there are some very dangerous people who will try to spread it on purpose. Not saying these people are those but with their attitude it may amount to the same difference.

I am concerned for my parents, they're in their 70's so they're in a high risk category. I'm lower risk as I'm under 50, and I'm not immune compromised, thankfully nobody in my immediate family is immune compromised, so we'll likely ride it out well enough. We do have friends and associates who are immune compromised, and several of them are over 50, so there is concern for them to be had all the same.

<sarcasm>But if you want to be completely amoral about the matter, Covid19 seems to be tailor-made for helping trim the tail on a number of social services if it manages to get its hooks into certain demographics. Reducing the baby boomer and older population by "just" 1 to 2% would do wonders for extending the Social Security Trust Fund, although it's impact on medicare is debatable, given the cost of someone potentially being hospitalized for weeks(under quarantine no less) prior to death certainly runs up quite the tab, but on the flip side, you're not spending tens of thousands/year on medications and other medical services for that person for another 10 to 20 years. but the mortality rate table aren't suggesting 1 to 2% for baby boomers, it's looking to be somewhere in excess of 4% going by the mortality numbers they have at present.</sarcasm>

As far as economic apocalypse scenarios go, this one certainly wasn't on my list though. A virus which mostly kills senior citizens and the immune comprised/already sick? That is not a recipe for social collapse on its own, as the people who you truly need for society to continue functioning are not the ones at any kind of significant risk. Sure, medical services could get swamped, but everything else should be able to function more or less normally. Even if the people involved are concerned about the welfare of loved ones and other associates.

It does create an interesting ethics question with regards to whose needs are being served by the economic disruption continued (already failed) containment efforts present. As the mortality tables make it clear that we're doing this to save the elderly, the sickly and infirm--hardly the engine that makes economies work.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 10, 2020, 04:01:53 PM
Think of Covid19 as something of "a modest proposal".

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 10, 2020, 04:10:36 PM
The Logan's Run virus.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 10, 2020, 04:13:21 PM
I'm having those conversations now. My ex works for a company with a cluster of infections. Our children go back and forth between our homes. I'm taking measures to try to avoid contact with grandparents and make sure not to expose other people in high risk groups. Identifying symptoms* is going to be hard as allergy season kicks into high gear. I'm really hoping higher temps limit the spread of CV-19 like they do with the flu. Without weather aided control this thing looks like its going to get bad.

*Particularly in children sense thankfully the disease is most often mild in children.

Australia has fairly high temps and it hasn't seemed to slow the spread much so the hope for 'summer' limiting spread doesn't seem likely.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 10, 2020, 04:17:11 PM
Quote
I am concerned for my parents, they're in their 70's so they're in a high risk category

To play the devil. those in that age group are equally at high risk for any flu.

If in the next week it is discovered that people have contracted the virus that can't trace it to anyone who traveled or such. That could be the tipping point.
The precautions people are taking now should always apply especially when in contact with the compromised.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 10, 2020, 04:18:56 PM
Quote
Australia has fairly high temps and it hasn't seemed to slow the spread much so the hope for 'summer' limiting spread doesn't seem likely.

The Spanish flu slowed during the summer only to come back stronger.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 10, 2020, 04:35:14 PM
Quote
I am concerned for my parents, they're in their 70's so they're in a high risk category. I'm lower risk as I'm under 50, and I'm not immune compromised, thankfully nobody in my immediate family is immune compromised, so we'll likely ride it out well enough. We do have friends and associates who are immune compromised, and several of them are over 50, so there is concern for them to be had all the same.

My wife and I are in the high-risk groups, but it's up to us to take precautions for ourselves.  Since almost everyone (99.8%) under 50 who get the disease will recover within 1-2 weeks (at most) I'm of the opinion that extraordinary measures should be reserved for people who aren't able to take those precautions.  Keep the schools open, let fans attend concerts and games, have fun at parties, just don't lick the punch bowl or sneeze on the salad bar.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 10, 2020, 06:36:07 PM
The mortality statistics don't tell all the story: like the articles I linked point out, even a good percentage of younger people suffers from breathing difficulties and pneumonia, requiring oxygen, treatment and even forced breathing in intensive care.

Now, most of the younger people kept under modern hospital care will recover given sufficient time, while the older at some point succumb to multiple organ failure and end up as statistics.

But if your hospital system is so swamped by patients that they can't keep on and your doctors start to fall sick themselves, it will not be only the elderly that die.

Stats point at a 20% of infected people that are so ill to require hospital care, and that percentage includes most age groups: those people if left untreated may succumb to the virus even if they would normally recover with standard hospital care.

Honestly, I hope it will all blow out in nothing and we will all laugh at how worried everybody was for such a nuisance.
But the signs, according to the experts, not me, point to something serious enough to deserve the kind of measures that China took: anything less is seriously playing with fire.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 10, 2020, 08:55:37 PM
I just saw the article that Iranians have a higher death rate for Covid-19 because they die of Methanol poisoning which is thought to be a preventative for it. I wonder how this slants the metrics?

https://nypost.com/2020/03/10/dozens-of-iranians-die-from-alcohol-poisoning-in-attempt-to-fight-coronavirus/
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Wayward Son on March 11, 2020, 10:49:48 AM
Quote
My wife and I are in the high-risk groups, but it's up to us to take precautions for ourselves.  Since almost everyone (99.8%) under 50 who get the disease will recover within 1-2 weeks (at most) I'm of the opinion that extraordinary measures should be reserved for people who aren't able to take those precautions.  Keep the schools open, let fans attend concerts and games, have fun at parties, just don't lick the punch bowl or sneeze on the salad bar.

The problem with this is that those in the high-risk groups interact with those under 50.  Are you going to quarantine yourselves from your children and grandchildren?  Or (if you don't have them), require those who do to do so?  How about those at grocery stores, pharmacies, and workplaces?  If everywhere is a hot-bed of Covid-19, those over 50 will have to isolate themselves for their own safety.

The other problem is with medical capacity.  Allowing the virus to spread uncontrollably can overwhelm the emergency ICUs for those who require help to recover.  P.Z. Myers has a nice graphic which illustrates this. (https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2020/03/11/aw-jeez-south-dakota-has-covid-19/)  Allowing an uncontrolled spread of the virus guarantees a higher death rate simply because we don't have unlimited medical equipment and medicines for the worst cases.  Herd immunity is also important in controlling this disease.

And exactly how are you going to prevent those 5 - 9 year-olds from sneezing on the salad bar, much less the old codger who thinks it's all a bunch of hooey? ;)

Until we get an effective vaccine, we should use every tool available.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 11, 2020, 11:28:50 AM
The overall efficacy rate for flu vaccine for people >=65 last year was 12%. Adjusted efficacy for all ages is 34%. That's after nearly a decade of tweaking.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/2018-2019.html

Implementing massively disruptive policies and practices just "until we get a vaccine" is a bad strategy. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 11, 2020, 11:40:05 AM
The problem with this is that those in the high-risk groups interact with those under 50.  Are you going to quarantine yourselves from your children and grandchildren?  Or (if you don't have them), require those who do to do so?  How about those at grocery stores, pharmacies, and workplaces?  If everywhere is a hot-bed of Covid-19, those over 50 will have to isolate themselves for their own safety.

The other problem is with medical capacity.  Allowing the virus to spread uncontrollably can overwhelm the emergency ICUs for those who require help to recover.  P.Z. Myers has a nice graphic which illustrates this. (https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2020/03/11/aw-jeez-south-dakota-has-covid-19/)  Allowing an uncontrolled spread of the virus guarantees a higher death rate simply because we don't have unlimited medical equipment and medicines for the worst cases.  Herd immunity is also important in controlling this disease.

And exactly how are you going to prevent those 5 - 9 year-olds from sneezing on the salad bar, much less the old codger who thinks it's all a bunch of hooey? ;)

Until we get an effective vaccine, we should use every tool available.

You're right that there are going to be problems.  I'm not "compromised" by any of the chronic diseases that the CDC lists, but in the past 8 weeks I've had pneumonia, flu A and a stomach virus, even though I had vaccines for the first two.  All my fault, as I spent 4 days in a casino in Louisville staying up all hours playing in a pool tournament with a motley 1000 or so pool players, many of whom didn't appear to have slept, washed or even eaten recently. 

My wife and I are planning to "self-isolate" once there are any reported cases in our community.  We've stocked up on food, bourbon, whiskey, gin, scotch and nitrile gloves.  Which reminds me to check the beer supply. Not seeing the grandkids would be a painful sacrifice, so we'll cross that bridge when the damn dam breaks, even if we have to invent a new metaphor to get past it.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 11, 2020, 11:49:23 AM
My wife and I are planning to "self-isolate" once there are any reported cases in our community.  We've stocked up on food, bourbon, whiskey, gin, scotch and nitrile gloves.  Which reminds me to check the beer supply. Not seeing the grandkids would be a painful sacrifice, so we'll cross that bridge when the damn dam breaks, even if we have to invent a new metaphor to get past it.

I think you've prioritized your provisions correctly, but how long do you envision the self-isolation if/when it happens?  Not a gotcha, genuinely wondering how you're thinking about this.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 11, 2020, 11:55:59 AM
I feel like I must have a blind spot around this. Is there a scenario where the virus slows with some degree of permanence through effective non-contact and isolation?

I'm going to read up a bit on South Korea's approach. Apparently they've been quite successful with this.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 11, 2020, 11:57:48 AM
My wife and I are planning to "self-isolate" once there are any reported cases in our community.  We've stocked up on food, bourbon, whiskey, gin, scotch and nitrile gloves.  Which reminds me to check the beer supply. Not seeing the grandkids would be a painful sacrifice, so we'll cross that bridge when the damn dam breaks, even if we have to invent a new metaphor to get past it.

I think you've prioritized your provisions correctly, but how long do you envision the self-isolation if/when it happens?  Not a gotcha, genuinely wondering how you're thinking about this.

Depends on external circumstances.  I can be pretty happy in my study surrounded by books and music and at my pool table, so it might not be the hardship for me that it would be for others.  Besides, I'll always have you folks to vent at if I get bored :).
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: NobleHunter on March 11, 2020, 12:02:53 PM
The problem is that there seems to be significant lag between when the virus is present and spreading in the community and the first confirmed case. The time to self-isolate is before the virus shows up.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 11, 2020, 12:06:52 PM
The problem is that there seems to be significant lag between when the virus is present and spreading in the community and the first confirmed case. The time to self-isolate is before the virus shows up.

True, but it's hard to see what isn't visible.  Two cases have been confirmed in Michigan so far, both within 50 miles of where we live, so we know it's coming and are taking steps, just not the "big one" yet.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2020, 12:20:16 PM
My company has now issued guidance that employees can work from home until March 20. I'm not sure what's so special about that date, it seems they'll be constantly pushing that deadline out. Meanwhile, we're still figuring out things like flying candidates in for interviews. Maybe if they are in Seattle we'll go by video.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: NobleHunter on March 11, 2020, 12:38:17 PM
I just got back from buying lunch and the amount of stuff I had to touch that other people had touched was alarming. And I can't stop scratching my face.

Work is sorting out who has VPN access. We don't have the bandwidth for everyone to use it but no word on how/if "non business critical" people will work from home.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 11, 2020, 12:42:15 PM
I could link to a video of people telling their viewers that they should avoid touching their faces as they are touching their own, but I like this one better (https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CanineUnsightlyBighornsheep-mobile.mp4).
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2020, 01:23:30 PM
No live audience for the DNC debate on Sunday.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 11, 2020, 02:28:02 PM
12462 total cases, 827 dead.
In Lombardy all intensive care units are full, so they've officially started to triaging and letting all the worst cases go with only palliative care.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 11, 2020, 02:32:26 PM
fizz do you know the degree to which the traditional flu(s) are contributing to the health care overload? Would love to have a sense of where those 12K infected tip the scales when combined with other flu viruses.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 11, 2020, 02:38:36 PM
According to what my friends in hospital told me, it's quite rare to need a respirator: I've no specific numbers, but I know that there are a total of 5k respirators in all of Italy right now, and it have always been more than sufficient.
They've ordered 20k more, but it will take time to get them, as they will be soon quite scarce everywhere.

The point is that normal flu do react to treatments, so respirators are only needed to pass critical moments... this virus do not respond to anything, so sick people must be left under the respirator till their body heal naturally or they die.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2020, 04:07:48 PM
Quote
“By now, we’re forced to provide intensive care treatment in the corridor, in the operating rooms, in the recovery rooms,” he said. “We gutted entire hospital wards to make room for the seriously ill. One of the best healthcare systems in the world, the Lombard one, is one step away from collapse.”

Lombardy’s top health official, Giulio Gallera, told Bloomberg that the region had dedicated 80% of its 1,123 acute-care beds to coronavirus. But Pesenti said that according to some forecasts, Lombardy could have 18,000 hospitalized coronavirus patients by March 26, between 2,700 and 3,200 of whom would require acute care.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 11, 2020, 05:14:24 PM
Next step: from now on, in all of Italy, only selected grocery stores, pharmacies and newspaper stands will remain open, everything else will be closed (they should still be able to provide home deliveries, if the delivery people are adequately protected).

Factories that are able to prove having adopted sufficient precautions may remain open, as for farming activities

Even simply for walking around people will have to carry the self-signed forms detailing destination and reason to go out, and police can check them and follow up on them if they want.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 11, 2020, 10:54:36 PM
As I suspected...

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/487110-tests-indicate-coronavirus-can-survive-in-the-air

"A study awaiting peer review from scientists at Princeton University, the University of California-Los Angeles and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) posted online Wednesday indicated that the COVID-19 virus could remain viable in the air "up to 3 hours post aerosolization..."

We needed this information a month ago. Our CDC has been lulling everyone into a false sense of security if this new information is accurate. The masks certainly don't provide full proof protection but without a mask you are just wide open defenseless. It wouldn't surprise me if you need eye protection as well but certainly the advice given by our Surgeon General before was erroneous and when he should have erred on the side of caution he instead threw it to the winds.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 11, 2020, 11:16:55 PM
The official Congressional Physician (I didn't know they had one) told members of Congress today to expect between 60 million and 150 million people in the US to become infected with coronavirus.  We need to remember that below the age of 50 well over 99% of people who get COVID-19 recover.  We will still need somewhere between 15 million and 40 million hospital beds to treat the more severe cases.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 12, 2020, 10:21:40 AM
We needed this information a month ago. Our CDC has been lulling everyone into a false sense of security if this new information is accurate. The masks certainly don't provide full proof protection but without a mask you are just wide open defenseless. It wouldn't surprise me if you need eye protection as well but certainly the advice given by our Surgeon General before was erroneous and when he should have erred on the side of caution he instead threw it to the winds.

I hope you're wearing your cache of masks with maximum smugness. Let's imagine the surgeon general announces "everyone should be wearing masks, even though there aren't enough for more than 4% of us". That would go well.

Of course, that report says that the virus can live on surfaces for 3 times as long, so I guess they should start announcing that everyone wear latex gloves.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 12, 2020, 10:39:45 AM
Quote
Of course, that report says that the virus can live on surfaces for 3 times as long, so I guess they should start announcing that everyone wear latex gloves.

Not everyone, but I will start doing that, and not latex, but nitrile.  I wonder how long before people start hoarding them, too.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 12, 2020, 11:20:35 AM
Or he could have said if you can't wear a mask stay away from crowds like in conventions, theaters, concerts, mass transit, as much as you practically can.

Instead he downplayed those risks focused on washing hands. I bet a lot of people who washed their hands still got it. If it's airborne and stays in the air for 3 hours then you go into the restroom where someone is shedding virus just be breathing, they wash their hands, you wash your hands, and you breathe it in and get infected. And so do a dozen other people who come in after you.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 12, 2020, 12:40:49 PM
Fizz, are you able to share any statistics about the cases that have been seen in Italy so far?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 12, 2020, 12:48:24 PM
The daily statistics come out some time after 18.00 UTC+1, so in about 20 min-half an hour.
Will post them as soon as they come out.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 12, 2020, 12:50:45 PM
The official Congressional Physician (I didn't know they had one) told members of Congress today to expect between 60 million and 150 million people in the US to become infected with coronavirus.  We need to remember that below the age of 50 well over 99% of people who get COVID-19 recover.  We will still need somewhere between 15 million and 40 million hospital beds to treat the more severe cases.

Quote
As of mid-March 2010, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that about 59 million Americans contracted the H1N1 virus, 265,000 were hospitalized as a result, and 12,000 died

The hysterics, they just won't stop.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 12, 2020, 12:51:47 PM
Fizz, are you able to share any statistics about the cases that have been seen in Italy so far?

Here is a site I found. I didn't verify the veracity but it looks right and has a nice data focused presentation.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/ (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 12, 2020, 12:55:47 PM
I'm hoping he can provide some statistics on different cohorts based on age.  It turns out that everyone has been reusing the same set of statistics that are based just on the patients in Wuhan in the initial spread of the virus.  The city is very smoggy and has a high number of smokers.  Even so, the mortality rate is only .8% for people who don't have any of the complicating underlying conditions, which I don't.  I think Italy can provide a much better picture if they are breaking down the data.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 12, 2020, 12:56:04 PM
Yes, they are correct, but they still have yesterday data...
Our civil protection have a dashboard (I think the same i've seen used by John Hopkins University)

http://opendatadpc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/b0c68bce2cce478eaac82fe38d4138b1

but that too is still not updated at today.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 12, 2020, 01:00:02 PM
I'm hoping he can provide some statistics on different cohorts based on age.  It turns out that everyone has been reusing the same set of statistics that are based just on the patients in Wuhan in the initial spread of the virus.  The city is very smoggy and has a high number of smokers.  Even so, the mortality rate is only .8% for people who don't have any of the complicating underlying conditions, which I don't.  I think Italy can provide a much better picture if they are breaking down the data.

This is what I've found, updated at 6th of march (from the health ministry website, translated with google translate):
The average age of deceased and positive COVID-2019 patients is 81 years, they are mostly men and in more than two thirds of cases they have three or more pre-existing diseases. This was stated in an analysis of the data of 105 Italian patients who died on 4 March, conducted by the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, which highlights that there are 20 years of difference between the average age of the deceased and that of the virus positive patients.

The report concerns deceased patients and is based on the data obtained by filling in a questionnaire developed specifically for the purpose of detecting death cases.

The average age of the patients examined is 81 years, about 20 years higher than that of the patients who contracted the infection, and women are 28 (26.7%).

The majority of deaths 42.2% occurred in the age group between 80 and 89 years, while 32.4% were between 70 and 79, 8.4% between 60 and 69, 2.8% between 50 and 59 and 14.1% over 90 years.
Women who died after contracting COVID-2019 infection are older than men (median age women 83.4 - median age men 79.9). The average number of pathologies observed in this population is 3.4 (median 3, Standard Deviation 2.1). Overall, 15.5% of the sample had 0 or 1 pathologies, 18.3% had 2 pathologies and 67.2% had 3 or more pathologies. The most represented comorbidity is hypertension (present in 74.6% of the sample), followed by ischemic heart disease (70.4%) and diabetes mellitus (33.8%).

The median time from the onset of symptoms to hospitalization was 5 days and the median of the time between hospitalization and death was 4 days. "Although preliminary, these data confirm the observations made so far in the rest of the world on the main characteristics of patients - comments the president of ISS Silvio Brusaferro -, in particular on the fact that the elderly and people with pre-existing diseases are more at risk. These are very fragile people, who often live in close contact and who we must protect as much as possible ".



Of course this was before the emergency wards started to go in overload and not having any more available respirators... we will see how it will evolve.
It's a bit disquieting that we have already a third of China victims, with 1/25th of the population...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 12, 2020, 01:12:49 PM
Quote
The majority of deaths 42.2% occurred in the age group between 80 and 89 years, while 32.4% were between 70 and 79, 8.4% between 60 and 69, 2.8% between 50 and 59 and 14.1% over 90 years.
Women who died after contracting COVID-2019 infection are older than men (median age women 83.4 - median age men 79.9). The average number of pathologies observed in this population is 3.4 (median 3, Standard Deviation 2.1). Overall, 15.5% of the sample had 0 or 1 pathologies, 18.3% had 2 pathologies and 67.2% had 3 or more pathologies. The most represented comorbidity is hypertension (present in 74.6% of the sample), followed by ischemic heart disease (70.4%) and diabetes mellitus (33.8%).

The numbers are a little misleading, since they don't say the percentage of people in each age group that died.  For instance, 42.2% of deaths in patients in the 80-90 age range is frightening, but that might only be 5% of all patients in that range.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 12, 2020, 01:22:09 PM
Ok, new numbers are out right now: 15,113 total infected (+2249 cases), 1,016 total victims (+189). 

Right now, even if factories that provide adequate sanitation measures could in theory remain open, there are many strikes going on because workers complains that the measures taken are more theory than practice.


From the press conference:
The 168 new victims "did not die from coronavirus but are dead people who also had coronavirus among the various diseases". Angelo Borrelli said at the press conference. As for the age groups of the victims, 2% are in the 50 to 59 age group, 8% between 60-69, 32% between 70-79, 45% between 80-89 and 14% above the 90 years.

In the last 24 hours, according to data released a little while ago by the Civil Protection, the coronavirus-related deaths in Italy have increased by 36.2%. The increase in patients was 6.6%. But the data is affected by an update from the Lombardy Region that did not arrive in time. The increase in the number of people healed, which became a total of 1,004, with an increase of 280 units, is 38.6%. Finally, ICU patients (877) increased by 144, an increase of 19.6%.

(sorry, my mistake: this last quote is regarding the conference of 2 days ago)

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 12, 2020, 01:37:28 PM
Quote
The majority of deaths 42.2% occurred in the age group between 80 and 89 years, while 32.4% were between 70 and 79, 8.4% between 60 and 69, 2.8% between 50 and 59 and 14.1% over 90 years.
Women who died after contracting COVID-2019 infection are older than men (median age women 83.4 - median age men 79.9). The average number of pathologies observed in this population is 3.4 (median 3, Standard Deviation 2.1). Overall, 15.5% of the sample had 0 or 1 pathologies, 18.3% had 2 pathologies and 67.2% had 3 or more pathologies. The most represented comorbidity is hypertension (present in 74.6% of the sample), followed by ischemic heart disease (70.4%) and diabetes mellitus (33.8%).

The numbers are a little misleading, since they don't say the percentage of people in each age group that died.  For instance, 42.2% of deaths in patients in the 80-90 age range is frightening, but that might only be 5% of all patients in that range.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/)


But not broken down by country. Men seem more likely to die than women. Otherwise the older, sicker you are the worse off you are with covid 19.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 12, 2020, 01:43:07 PM
Oh, this is the best I've found: the health ministry provide a more detailed analysis.
This is the English language infographic updated at yesterday:
https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/covid-19-infografica_eng.pdf

This is the link to a greater detail analysis updated at the 9th of March, but it's only in Italian:
https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Bollettino-sorveglianza-integrata-COVID-19_09-marzo-2020.pdf

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 12, 2020, 02:19:19 PM
Quote
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

But not broken down by country. Men seem more likely to die than women. Otherwise the older, sicker you are the worse off you are with covid 19.

Yes, those numbers have been floating around, but they are from the initial batch of deaths in Wuhan and don't include deaths more recently from elsewhere.  That's why I'm hoping either Italy or S. Korea do that sort of analysis on an ongoing routine.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 12, 2020, 02:35:36 PM
In the in-depth analysis it's specified that all extra data apart for raw numbers, are collected by leaving hospitals fill online forms when they can, but of course the most swamped hospitals are having troubles keeping the information updated on a regular basis: this is the reason it's difficult right now to do more in-depth analysis, because the data are not all really available.

Generally speaking, we will be able to get the exact detailed picture only sometime in the future, once the emergency will have settled in routine (hopefully).
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 12, 2020, 03:13:20 PM
Pornhub is making their premium content free throughout Italy, to comfort those in quarantine (plus donating money to hospitals). So, uh, try to stay positive. Truly wishing you all the best.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 12, 2020, 04:00:26 PM
Remember, the last year in Sid Meier's Civilization was 2020...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 12, 2020, 06:18:06 PM
Oh, what may be a good news: a medicine used to treat arthritis, tocilizumab, seems to have had good results in China in treating the infected and, well, stopping them dying, and now here too.
There are of course no clinical studies now, but as it gave some preliminary good results, in hospitals that tried it out, all hospitals have been authorized in trying it out on the worst cases, with Roche, the pharmaceutical company producing it, supplying it for free.

Apparently, the mechanism that lead to death with the virus is the cytokine storm, like it happened with the Spanish flu, and this medicine should help with that, even if it does nothing directly against the virus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocilizumab
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 13, 2020, 07:50:33 AM
It’s the American’s fault:
Quote
A spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry suggested on Thursday the U.S. military might have brought the coronavirus to the Chinese city of Wuhan, which has been hardest hit by the outbreak, doubling down on a war of words with Washington.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 13, 2020, 09:42:58 AM
Its a US conspiracy to control the world
When the vaccine comes out it will contain DNA code to make people blindly follow their leader
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 13, 2020, 11:18:53 AM
I think when Tom Hanks doesn't die, people will chill out.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 13, 2020, 11:45:10 AM
A year from now it's going to be really interesting to examine the unintended consequences of some of the measures being taken right now.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 13, 2020, 11:48:08 AM
So what are you advocating Scott?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: NobleHunter on March 13, 2020, 11:50:18 AM
The history books are going to say "The virus spread rapidly during March and April." Summing up some very long weeks in eight words.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 13, 2020, 12:36:54 PM
Thing is, if the countermeasures work, everyone will say that the whole thing was blown out of proportion, because look - nothing really happened. Kind of like y2k where it took millions of work hours to avoid the worst outcomes and then nothing really happened.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 13, 2020, 01:29:54 PM
Today 2116 new infected, 250 new dead.

This is an English language document our civil protection department prepared on request of other civil protection departments in Europe summing up all the measures taken in Italy, to be studied to determine what worked and what did not.
http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/documents/20182/1227694/Summary+of+measures+taken+against+the+spread+of+C-19/c16459ad-4e52-4e90-90f3-c6a2b30c17eb

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 13, 2020, 07:32:06 PM
It's probably too late at this point, between "supercarriers" who are contagious for up to 37 days, to it being viable in an airborne form for up to 3 hours, cardboard being able to carry it for up to 24 hours, and plastic for up to 3 days... A number people could very well end getting it from a UPS or FedEx delivery on their doorstep. From there, the rest of the community is exposed.

I'd lay odds most people living in a large urban area have been exposed to it already, they just may have been lucky enough to avoid it managing to infect them. Remember exposure alone does not guarantee infection.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 14, 2020, 08:38:01 AM
The current tally of infected is 2,239. Ohio says they have 100,000 just in the state.

On the official numbers, 2329 infected. Of those, 2228 are considered mild with 10 critical.

Pretty good sample size.

Ohio should be currently seeing about 430 critical cases. I don’t think they are. That would be all the news reported if there were.

Officially there are 47 deaths with half coming from a single nursing home in Washington State.



Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 14, 2020, 09:59:26 AM
Quote
We know now, just the fact of community spread says that at least 1%, at the very least 1% of our population is carrying this virus in Ohio today," said Dr. Amy Acton, Director of ODH. "We have 11.7 million people.

Whenever you know of 2 people that have it due to community spread, then you can assume that 1% of your population has it," said ODH Press Secretary Melanie Amato, citing a 2017 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the CDC
As an aside, "carrying" the virus doesn't mean "sick" from the virus.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 14, 2020, 02:11:35 PM
And if 1% of the population has it, with society being as mobile as it is, you have a good chance that an even larger proportion of the population has either been exposed to it, or will be shortly. But exposure != infection.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 15, 2020, 07:45:08 AM
Putting faces to the statistics: Obituary pages from Bergamo, Italy - February vs March (https://nypost.com/2020/03/14/heartbreaking-video-shows-coronavirus-devastating-toll-on-italy/)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 15, 2020, 12:03:31 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/15/trump-offers-large-sums-for-exclusive-access-to-coronavirus-vaccine

I hope it turns out to be fake, because imho if this turned out to be true it would be very very bad...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 15, 2020, 12:19:27 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/15/trump-offers-large-sums-for-exclusive-access-to-coronavirus-vaccine

I hope it turns out to be fake, because imho if this turned out to be true it would be very very bad...

Wouldn't surprise me if it is true - not sure how it could be enforced - most countries - including the US can force businesses to provide information and can ignore patents when it is in the national interest to do so.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 15, 2020, 01:52:13 PM
Anonymous source. Of course.

I suspect it’s all fake news and you guys are spreading hysteria.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 15, 2020, 02:03:46 PM
Well, the source of the original news, Die Welt, is an important conservative newspaper in Germany, and the Guardian too is not exactly a tabloid although the fact its a bit left leaning I'm sure will totally disqualify it as a source of news for you.

And I don't know in the US, but in Europe its being reported by all major newspapers and newscasts, left-leaning and right-leaning. 

Anyway, as I said, I *hope* it's false.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 15, 2020, 03:19:07 PM
I could see the United States working aggressively to secure access to a potential vaccine, even priority access to it. I don't see it pushing for exclusive access to it though, particularly when even the FDA acknowledges our approval process is often lethargic at the best of times. In that respect, we'd just as soon let other countries be the laboratory for finding out if the vaccine has any unintended side effects. So the exclusivity part seems highly unusual.

So some of it could be a "lost in translation" situation, or motive aspersions that weren't actually there.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 15, 2020, 04:48:31 PM
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/03/15/coronavirus-germany-tries-to-stop-us-luring-away-firm-seeking-vaccine.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-usa/germany-tries-to-stop-us-from-luring-away-firm-seeking-coronavirus-vaccine-idUSKBN2120IV

The news have been confirmed by the Germany Health Ministry, it seems.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 15, 2020, 06:23:45 PM
I doubt that would have the effect of reducing other countries' access to any resulting vaccine...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 15, 2020, 06:36:44 PM
I doubt that would have the effect of reducing other countries' access to any resulting vaccine...

Priority access could certainly limit access for other countries. Although honestly, I'd think that if a vaccine is identified and negative side-effects are ruled out, this might be a case where it gets licensed out to other makers so they can mass produce it as quickly as possible.

Of course, that also assumes that vaccine is even possible given reports are surfacing about people getting re-infected with the same strain of Covid-19 after having fought it off once previously.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 15, 2020, 08:02:36 PM
And then this crosses some pre-publication sites:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.13.990226v1

At least in tests with monkeys, re-infection is NOT happening. So the reported cases of reinfection being reported likely involve persons with other underlying issues, if they were in fact reinfected with the same strain in the first place.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 16, 2020, 12:03:10 AM
I wonder if eminent domain could be used to take a working vaccine.

Then I wonder if there could be an international version of such a law passed by the UN if one country decided to withhold a vaccine or gouge for it.

This seems like an area where if patent law meant millions of people dying then lives would take priority over property.

Of course, any taking would require fair compensation. The lawyers could argue about what fair means until the cows come home but whoever made a working vaccine should become filthy rich at the taxpayers' expense; it's just that they probably shouldn't be able to legally withhold it, either completely or by pricing it out of reach.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 16, 2020, 01:01:24 AM
"National Security" could be used by a number of nations(including the U.S.A.) to do pretty much that at this point I think.

Some nations, like China, would simply take possession of it if one of their companies is the one developing it.

Large nations getting "first dibs" on any production would be problematic/alarming for other nations because of how long it could take for their needs to be met before the others could get any themselves. The US is the 4th most populous nation on the planet, we could suck down a whole lot of vaccine production before anyone else could get anything if we "played ball" in that way. So Germans would have reason to be alarmed at that possible outcome.

We'll see what happens when/if a vaccine is ready to be introduced and tested. The FDA certainly won't be likely to make it available to the general public for at least a year, even if they fast-track it, so it's rather moot in the United States. Other nations (like China) would probably be using knock-off versions within weeks of the relevant information being made available, licensed to do so or not..
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 16, 2020, 08:19:33 AM
Quote
It was the first ever lab in the country designed to meet biosafety-level-4 (BSL-4) standards — the highest biohazard level, meaning that it would be qualified to handle the most dangerous pathogens.

BSL-4 labs have to be equipped with airtight hazmat suits or special 'cabinet' work spaces that confine viruses and bacteria that can be transmitted through the air to sealed boxes that scientists reach into using attached high-grade gloves[.] ...

Upon opening, it planned to first take up a project that required only BSL-3 precautions to be in place: a tick-borne virus that causes Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever.

It's a highly fatal disease, killing 10 to 40 percent of those it infects.

SARS, too, is a BSL-3 virus.  According to Nature's interview with the lab's director, Yuan Zhimin, the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory planned to study the SARS virus[.] ...

'After a laboratory leak incident of SARS in 2004, the former Ministry of Health of China initiated the construction of preservation laboratories for high-level pathogens such as SARS, coronavirus, and pandemic influenza virus,' wrote Guizhen Wu. ...

The Wuhan lab is also equipped for animal research.

The lab is 20 miles from the Wuhan market where the pandemic is thought to have originated. That’s important:

Quote
And then there is this little-known fact: Some Chinese researchers are believed to sell laboratory animals to street vendors after they have finished experimenting on them[.] ...

Instead of properly disposing of infected animals by cremation, as the law requires, they sell them on the side to make a little extra cash.  Or, in some cases, a lot of extra cash.  One Beijing researcher, now in jail, made the equivalent of a million dollars selling monkeys and rats on the live animal market, whence they likely wound up in someone's stomach.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 16, 2020, 08:50:32 AM
Anonymous source. Of course.

I suspect it’s all fake news and you guys are spreading hysteria.

And ...

Quote
CureVac issued a statement on Sunday, in which it said: "The company rejects current rumours of an acquisition."

The firm said it was in contact with many organisations and authorities worldwide, but would not comment on speculation. It rejected "allegations about offers for acquisition of the company or its technology".

Quote
Responding to the report, a US official said: "This story is wildly overplayed. The US government has spoken with many [more than 25] companies that claim they can help with a vaccine. Most of these companies already received seed funding from US investors."

"We will continue to talk to any company that claims to be able to help. And any solution found would be shared with the world," the US official added.

So, fake news.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 16, 2020, 09:58:15 AM
I wonder if eminent domain could be used to take a working vaccine.

Vaccines are typically difficult to produce, one of the methods requires chicken eggs. So ramping up production isn't always simple. So its possible a vaccine gets developed but only 10-50 million doses per month can be produced. So who gets priority on the first batch of doses? Eventually there would be enough for everyone but in the early days/months of the vaccine there is going to be the question of who gets it first.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 16, 2020, 10:04:29 AM
So, fake news.

Would you consider this a positive Trump story if the real story wasn't they were out to buy the company but to buy the first 300 million available doses for America? I mean its literally America first at that point and the rest of the world gets to wait until we've satisfied our demand.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 16, 2020, 10:55:22 AM
I would not consider it a positive nor a negative, I'm not doing hypotheticals.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 16, 2020, 11:10:40 AM
Some things are facts, other are speculations. We can't say what's exactly the case, if its only a big misunderstanding of there was foul play, but it's still a bit far from "fake news".
I'll sum up here what we know, and what was said:

First, the actual allegations, be they true or false or partially either: Trump administration contacted this German biotech company, and they had talks on the that works in strict collaboration with German universities and whose research is partially government subsided and that claim to have something coming out in early summer, and offered them 1B$ to be acquired and move their research and production lines to the US, where they also have a seat in the Boston area, to give priority access to the US to anything they produced. The German government had to intervene to stop the move.

I reiterate, these are only the accusations in the article.
Now what we know more or less for sure:

1st fact, at least part of the German government does believe that those accusations are true:
Quote
At a news conference on Sunday, interior minister Horst Seehofer was asked to confirm the attempts to court the German company. “I can only say that I have heard several times today from government officials today that this is the case, and we will be discussing it in the crisis committee tomorrow,” he said.

2nd fact, there was a meeting between the American CEO Daniel Menichella and Trump and other members of the Coronavirus Task Force on March 2nd.

3rd fact, on March 11th the German founder of the company took back the place of CEO without providing any explanation for the move.

4th fact, the company itself issued a denial about having received any offer, and reiterate they are developing a vaccine for "everybody"
Quote
To make it clear again on coronavirus: CureVac has not received from the US government or related entities an offer before, during and since the Task Force meeting in the White House on March 2. CureVac rejects all allegations from press.

5th fact, an US official when queried about this stated that the allegations were "wildly overplayed", and
Quote
The US government has spoken with many [more than 25] companies that claim they can help with a vaccine. Most of these companies already received seed funding from US investors.

and
Quote
We will continue to talk to any company that claims to be able to help. And any solution found would be shared with the world,


Now, of course these bunch of facts can be read in different ways: was the German government scared by ghosts, by seeing the change of CEO and the meeting and making 1+1 = 11? Is this part of a diplomatic wrestling match to send signals of intent between governments? Part of a German government attempt to out-direct some public opinion anger? (because in Europe this is not being liked much...) Did Trump really offer a spur-of-the-moment idea offer? Or is it part of a wider policy, like the idea that was floating around of the US buying Nokia and Ericsson to fight off Huawei in the 5G field?

We don't know, we can only make a guess based on our personal biases, but at least if there was something behind all that smoke, by bringing it out now the idea should have been thoroughly killed, one hope.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/not-for-sale-anger-in-germany-at-report-trump-seeking-exclusive-coronavirus-vaccine-deal
https://twitter.com/CureVacAG?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
https://www.curevac.com/news/curevac-ceo-daniel-menichella-ber%C3%A4t-mit-us-pr%C3%A4sident-donald-trump-und-mitgliedern-der-corona-task-force-entwicklungsm%C3%B6glichkeiten-eines-coronavirus-impfstoffes
https://www.curevac.com/news/company-founder-ingmar-hoerr-succeeds-daniel-menichella-as-ceo-of-curevac-ag
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-usa/germany-tries-to-stop-us-from-luring-away-firm-seeking-coronavirus-vaccine-idUSKBN2120IV
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 16, 2020, 11:12:18 AM
Quote
...Most of these companies already received seed funding from US investors."

"We will continue to talk to any company that claims to be able to help. And any solution found would be shared with the world," the US official added.

So, fake news.

Seed money is not acquisition. ...so, not fake news. Even acquisition does not mean hoarding. However; even if an investor asks for a good return on investment, without the seed money, no country would get any benefits.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 16, 2020, 06:30:27 PM
Dire prediction sees shift in UK strategy (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-51903319)
Quote
The UK's plan has shifted because the scientific modelling showed we were on course for a "catastrophic epidemic".

A strategy of just slowing the spread of the virus, but not trying to stop it, would have overwhelmed intensive care units.

The modelling by Imperial College London has been heavily informed by the experience in Italy and is influencing decisions at the heart of government.

Their calculations predicted 260,000 deaths in the UK.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 16, 2020, 10:42:51 PM
Official statement from CureVac:
Quote
To make it clear again on coronavirus: CureVac has not received from the US government or related entities an offer before, during and since the Task Force meeting in the White House on March 2. CureVac rejects all allegations from press.

It was obviously fake news.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 17, 2020, 03:36:32 AM
3rd fact, on March 11th the German founder of the company took back the place of CEO without providing any explanation for the move.

Evidently CureVac was annoyed enough with the speculation on this point that on Monday they released ANOTHER statement saying the prior CEO stepped aside citing health reasons not related to the Corona Virus outbreak.

Also related, I love how an associate of mine shared a Business Insider article released on Monday(CureVac's denial of things was released on Sunday), and did a nice long write-up about the accusation. They did mention CureVac's response, as the last paragraph or the article.

I think we need to revisit how information distortion works and the well known studies about how most people only bother to read the first few lines on any given webpage they happen to be browsing. This also applies to news sites. So nice to see them putting the most credible sources at the bottom of the report, rather than closer to the top.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 17, 2020, 06:57:02 AM
Over the weekend, a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll suggested that twice as many Democrats as Republicans believe that "the worst is yet to come" concerning the pandemic. The poll also found 68 percent of Democrats were concerned that a family member might catch the virus, whereas just 40 percent of Republicans shared that concern.

It's clear that this has to do with the media choices of the two groups, as well as with the decisions of right wing media to parrot the administration's talking points, as opposed to challenging misstatements by the president when they were clearly at odds with those of medical experts and health organizations (and of course, one can't ignore the partisan divide where many Dems automatically distrust the president, whereas many Repubs blindly follow him,)

But what will be the effect of this divide, or of the continued cynicism of a majority of Republicans now that the president has pivoted and is now asking for the country to act pretty dramatically?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 17, 2020, 07:55:22 AM
 ::)

What will be the effect of the DemPanic?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 17, 2020, 11:34:02 AM
Over the weekend, a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll suggested that twice as many Democrats as Republicans believe that "the worst is yet to come" concerning the pandemic. The poll also found 68 percent of Democrats were concerned that a family member might catch the virus, whereas just 40 percent of Republicans shared that concern.

Part of that difference is where people live.  Many rural towns are isolated enough that quite a few could potentially not see any infections with a bit of luck and the self quarantine efforts of the rest of the country.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 17, 2020, 01:16:30 PM
Over the weekend, a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll suggested that twice as many Democrats as Republicans believe that "the worst is yet to come" concerning the pandemic. The poll also found 68 percent of Democrats were concerned that a family member might catch the virus, whereas just 40 percent of Republicans shared that concern.

Part of that difference is where people live.  Many rural towns are isolated enough that quite a few could potentially not see any infections with a bit of luck and the self quarantine efforts of the rest of the country.

Pretty much, many rural areas will be hit, but many of them will also likely be able to nearly completely avoid it as well if we started isolating quickly enough. In either case, the more rural and sub-urban areas are much more likely to not get hit as hard as the urban areas. Mass transit is going to be one the single largest contagion vectors out there, so anyone who lives in an area where a significant portion of their workforce uses mass transit is likely in for a big hit.

But those areas where mass transit is barely used? *crickets*

In Idaho, the first 5 cases happened in the largest urban area in the state(Boise, but those cases were travel related), then we had cases pop up around the Sun Valley Ski Resort(mostly rural, but a big tourist area during the winter), and another pair pop up in Teton County, which is just across the state line from Jackson Hole, Wyoming, which is another major Ski Resort/tourist destination. (And the Sun Valley area has historically voted Democrat for the past many election cycles)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 17, 2020, 03:10:36 PM
We talked about this and this article repeats some of our conversation but I found it informative anyway.

My concern is that with our Surgeon General insisting that the masks are ineffective when in reality what it seems like he means to say is that medical personnel need them more right now when they are in short supply, is that when there are plenty enough masks for everyone people won't wear them when they should because of his harmful advice.

https://time.com/5799964/coronavirus-face-mask-asia-us/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

"But, David Hui, a respiratory medicine expert at the Chinese University of Hong Kong who studied the 2002 to 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) extensively, says it’s “common sense” that wearing a mask would protect against infectious diseases like COVID-19.

“If you are standing in front of someone who is sick, the mask will give some protection,” Hui says. “The mask provides a barrier from respiratory droplets, which is predominantly how the virus spreads.”

He also says that the role of a face mask may be especially important in the epidemic due to the nature of the virus. Patients with COVID-19 often have mild or even no symptoms, and some researchers believe it can also be transmitted when patients are asymptomatic—meaning patients can be contagious and don’t know they’re sick."
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 18, 2020, 01:46:06 PM
Always in the spirit of providing a glimpse of future from our country, with today numbers, we are at a total 35.713 infected persons, and, more dramatically, 475 victims, for a total of 2978.
Not even China at their worse had so many victims in a single day.
And experts estimate that, if our current measures do work at least a little, we should see the peak not before one or two weeks.
And while near the breaking point, for now the doctors have still managed to meet all demand by increasing capabilities, we are not yet to the point of starting of triaging.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 18, 2020, 02:17:57 PM
:(
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: NobleHunter on March 18, 2020, 02:19:58 PM
I hate that only one or two weeks until the peak is probably good news.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 19, 2020, 06:36:17 AM
Finally someone with some common sense about the mask issue. Once there are enough masks, almost everyone should probably be wearing them in crowded areas like we see in many parts of Asia. The new normal.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/masks-respirators-and-coronavirus-catching-up-to-the-changing-advice-222618518.html

"In a series of tweets sent Wednesday morning, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb suggested that evidence that the virus can be spread by asymptomatic people undermines the official position maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that masks should only be worn by the sick.

“If the concern is that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic younger Americans (millennials) are continuing to spread #Coronavirus because they don’t heed warnings, you could require anyone between certain ages to wear a procedure mask when they go out,” wrote Gottlieb."
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 19, 2020, 06:51:31 AM
There are two sides of the mask issue - protecting oneself, and protecting others.

The point that Gottlieb is making is that having people wear the masks reduces the likelihood of the wearers transmitting the virus to others.  That has never, as far as I know, been in dispute.  There has been debate about whether the general public wearing masks protects the wearers.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 19, 2020, 08:41:58 AM
Congress had their first 2 confirmed cases. Based on the average age of the members this is probably a serious development. Hopefully they can get the stimulus passed and start isolating.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 19, 2020, 11:17:26 AM
Quote
In an analysis published Tuesday, Stanford’s John P.A. Ioannidis — co-director of the university’s Meta-Research Innovation Center and professor of medicine, biomedical data science, statistics, and epidemiology and population health — suggests that the response to the coronavirus pandemic may be “a fiasco in the making” because we are making seismic decisions based on “utterly unreliable” data. The data we do have, Ioannidis explains, indicates that we are likely severely overreacting.

Quote
Ioannidis then zooms in on the “one situation” where “an entire, closed population was tested”: the Diamond Princess cruise ship’s quarantined passengers. While the fatality rate was 1.0%, he points out, the population was largely elderly, the most at-risk demographic. Projected out onto the age structure of the U.S. population, he calculates, the death rate is more like 0.125%, with a range of 0.025% to 0.625% based on the sample size:

Quote
Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%). It is also possible that some of the passengers who were infected might die later, and that tourists may have different frequencies of chronic diseases — a risk factor for worse outcomes with SARS-CoV-2 infection — than the general population. Adding these extra sources of uncertainty, reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%

“That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done,” Ioannidis stresses. “A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.”

If this is as big an overreaction as his analysis indicates, the hysterics that drove the fear parade are probably gonna need to self-isolate for their own protection.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 19, 2020, 11:23:57 AM
If this is as big an overreaction as his analysis indicates, the hysterics that drove the fear parade are probably gonna need to self-isolate for their own protection.

The seasonal flu doesn't overwhelm health systems like happened in Wuhan and Northern Italy.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 19, 2020, 11:41:39 AM
Italy ... funny you mention that:

Quote
An Italian study revealed that most of the patients who have died from the coronavirus previously had some type of illness or pre-existing condition.

Quote
The average age of those who have died from the Chinese virus in Italy is 79.5, according to a study by Italian health authorities, who have been examining the medical records involving the nation’s surging coronavirus death toll.

The study adds that more than 99 percent of Italy’s coronavirus deaths have been people who were previously ill or had some type of pre-existing medical condition, such as high blood pressure or diabetes.

Among those who have died from the Wuhan virus in Italy, more than 76 percent of them had high blood pressure, more than 35 percent had diabetes, 33 percent had heart disease, and more than 24 percent had atrial fibrillation, or “AFib,” according to Italy’s national health authority.

So far, 17 people under the age of 50 have died from the disease in Italy, all of whom have had some type of previous illness, the study finds.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 19, 2020, 11:49:12 AM
Italy ... funny you mention that:

Funny? - Its killing off the elderly at an unprecedented rate. High blood pressure at 80 isn't exactly the type of thing you are expecting someone to drop over and die from.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 19, 2020, 11:53:47 AM
Quote
The results of a clinical trial in France and studies conducted in lab settings are building hope that a drug usually used to treat malaria and arthritis can treat and possibly cure coronavirus patients, though scientists say more data is needed before drawing a firm conclusion.

hydroxychloroquine, it's been getting some news coverage this week and looks like it could be a player:

Quote
Researchers said the drugs cleared the virus in the nose and throat of most observed patients in three to six days. The study found that after six days of treatment, 70 percent of patients administered hydroxychloroquine were clear of the virus, compared to just 12.5 percent of patients who were not given drugs.

Azithromycin boosted the effect of hydroxychloroquine, according to the study. After six days of treatment, all patients treated with the drug combination “were virologically cured,” compared to 57.1 percent of patients treated with hydroxycholorquine by itself.

Bayer announced that it will soon make a large donation to the U.S. government of hydroxycholorquine.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 19, 2020, 11:56:09 AM
Italy ... funny you mention that:

Funny? - Its killing off the elderly at an unprecedented rate. High blood pressure at 80 isn't exactly the type of thing you are expecting someone to drop over and die from.

Funny, as in:
Quote

2: differing from the ordinary in a suspicious, perplexing, quaint, or eccentric way : PECULIAR
My car has been making a funny noise.
—often used as a sentence modifier
Funny, things didn't turn out the way we planned.

Is English not your first language?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 19, 2020, 12:10:28 PM
At some point soon there are going to be very pragmatic conversations around the long-term societal effects of shutting down an entire population to reduce the mortality of 0.05% of said population.

Hopefully just raising that doesn't label me as "ok with old people dying"
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 19, 2020, 12:42:55 PM
At some point soon there are going to be very pragmatic conversations around the long-term societal effects of shutting down an entire population to reduce the mortality of 0.05% of said population.

Hopefully just raising that doesn't label me as "ok with old people dying"

That's a fair discussion to have. We accept the risk of flu killing 20,000-50,000 of people per year. Should we accept the risk of corona virus too? The problem is that this virus seems to be more communicable than the flu and without a vaccine to offer some protection to many, particularly those most vulnerable to this type of disease.

Putting those two factors together we're looking at 5-10 times (many worst case estimates go into the millions) the raw number of deaths as the flu causes. Individual variation to this disease seems to be greater than that of the flu as well. Without shutting things down many people spread the disease widely because they are only mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic. Other people, even those without significant underlying conditions, end up needing critical care. Those factors coupled together allows for the possibility of overwhelming hospitals, which at that point the death rate begins to climb significantly as people can't receive the best palliative care. That's why Wuhan and Northern Italy have a death rate a hundred times higher than the best case estimate of 0.05%, but regions where there are only a few cases see a significantly lower rate of death as a result of the illness.

Under these conditions governments are kind of in a catch 22. React strongly to limit the spread and the data in the end is going to say it probably wouldn't have been as bad as feared. Under react and overwhelm ICUs and potentially have a million people die. So while flu is a reasonable comparison but we need to factor in rate of spread, hospitalization rates, hospital capacity, death rate without overwhelmed health systems, and death rate with overwhelmed health systems its hard to make a well informed decision.

Right now no real harm has been done to the economy that the government handing out lots and lots of checks can't cure. Its not so easy to undo a million deaths.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 19, 2020, 01:45:36 PM
The challenge with the novel coronavirus right now is that there is no immunity in the population right now.

With influenza, there is already partial immunity (our immune systems have "seen" similar viruses, to an extent) and there are also vaccines that provide additional resistance to those viruses.

Up until such a time that there is a vaccine, almost everybody on the planet could possibly contract Covid-19.  Combine that with the concern that the novel coronavirus is more communicable than normal strains of influenza, and we risk many more people getting infected more quickly than we generally observe with seasonal flu... leading to the risk of overloading medical systems... leading to many more preventable deaths.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 19, 2020, 02:07:39 PM
At some point soon there are going to be very pragmatic conversations around the long-term societal effects of shutting down an entire population to reduce the mortality of 0.05% of said population.

Hopefully just raising that doesn't label me as "ok with old people dying"

First they have to identify a treatment regime that works reliably. Once they have that, the "game" changes considerably, even without a vaccine in play.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 19, 2020, 02:17:58 PM
Google Chloroquine and COVID-19. Old and widely available malaria pill that is showing incredibly positive results. Could get fast-tracked. Won't stop the spread but appears to greatly mitigate or eliminate the virus altogether.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 19, 2020, 02:35:41 PM
There also is a (failed) drug that was developed for fighting Ebola which has been getting positive results. But until the clinical trials have conclusive (and positive) results, we're sticking with the new status quo.

Until we have a means to effectively treat patients that can basically eliminate the need for an ICU stay, or significantly reduce it, so that Hospital (critical care) services don't get swamped and people start dying from that. We remain with shelter-in-place.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 19, 2020, 02:58:59 PM
At some point soon there are going to be very pragmatic conversations around the long-term societal effects of shutting down an entire population to reduce the mortality of 0.05% of said population.

Hopefully just raising that doesn't label me as "ok with old people dying"

I agree the conversation is needed which will have to include health care ability to handle dealing with 0.05% of the population needing assistance and a small window of time.
How do you prepare for that?
In a polarized society the words 'healthy care' could end the conversation before it starts.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Seriati on March 19, 2020, 03:01:17 PM
I wonder if eminent domain could be used to take a working vaccine.

Then I wonder if there could be an international version of such a law passed by the UN if one country decided to withhold a vaccine or gouge for it.

This seems like an area where if patent law meant millions of people dying then lives would take priority over property.

There seems to be some confusion here.  US IP laws don't stop the US government from using patented or protected technology.  And getting the protection in the first place requires disclosing enough details that they could use it.

Every government in the world has the inherent authority to nationalize anything they choose, including, something like a vaccine (presuming they can produce it).
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 19, 2020, 04:34:55 PM
Talking about "everyone for themselves".
https://www.foxnews.com/us/air-force-flew-500000-coronavirus-test-kits

In Italy we have done about 100.000 tests because hospitals are not able to find enough swabs.
Now we've discovered that 500.000 of them produced here right in the middle of the pandemic zone, have been sold (quite discreetly) to the US.
There are some angry people here at the moment... this pandemic thing is going to really strain international relations.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 19, 2020, 04:50:34 PM
Sorry this was corrected quite quickly: the company does produce 10 milions swabs a week, and had just delivered a milion swabs to our hospitals, so its a non-story: some nervous people jumped on it a bit too quickly... :-p
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Seriati on March 19, 2020, 04:51:51 PM
Fizz, I'd be careful on that one.  The Italian plant isn't making test kits, it's making the cotton swabs that get used to collect the samples.  Nothing about that delivery is reducing the ability of Italy to run tests.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/18/817801222/testing-swabs-run-in-short-supply-as-makers-try-to-speed-up-production (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/18/817801222/testing-swabs-run-in-short-supply-as-makers-try-to-speed-up-production)   

Edited to add: Missed your correction.  Thought I'd leave the link up because it has some good information on the tests themselves.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 19, 2020, 05:06:34 PM
Yeah, its an interesting article (again, sorry for the, well, not false but misleading news... the clarifications are starting to come out now, but for a few hours it was huge here...).

Anyway, I still stand, now even more so, for my original comment: with this pandemic thing and so many people in a hair trigger state, any latent international mistrust is going to come out magnified at the minimal provocation, without a solid political work to foster goodwill.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 19, 2020, 07:04:32 PM
Sorry this was corrected quite quickly: the company does produce 10 milions swabs a week, and had just delivered a milion swabs to our hospitals, so its a non-story: some nervous people jumped on it a bit too quickly... :-p

What? Unpossible. Things like this have never happened before.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 20, 2020, 08:25:10 AM
CA gov Newsom claim 56% of California will be infected in 8 weeks. He’s using this claim to expand government controls with “mandatory” stay at home orders and deputizing randos to enforce it.

56% of Californian? I can’t see it being possible. The Grand Princess cruise, a completely contained and close quarter environment, less than 20% were infected.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2020, 11:10:28 AM
Quote
In the hot spot of Washington state, hospital workers have taken to hitting craft stores and Home Depot for vinyl, industrial tape, foam and elastic to improvise face shields.

Doctors and nurses across the nation report having to ration and reuse masks and other personal protective equipment. Shortages increase their risk of exposure — which can put them in quarantine, unable to help treat the growing number of patients.

Italy has seen some 1,700 medical workers test positive, about 8 percent of its corona cases.

That's a big deal. It's not hype.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Fenring on March 20, 2020, 11:20:44 AM
That's funny, TheDrake, because at a high profile hospital near where I live, the medical staff there is adamant that face-masks are completely useless and an irrelevant hype scare that people are doing out of fear, not practical protection. The one use they claim face masks have is that *if you are sick* they will avoid you coughing on people nearby; so wearing them protects others, not yourself. The mask itself, unless you have a higher-grade model than even hospitals use, would not prevent the airborn pathogen getting to you. Perhaps other medical experts dispute this point, but it rings true to me, and only serves to underscore that the biggest danger of this pandemic is people, not contagion. I am *much* more scared of the lunatics hoarding tp than the teeny chance of having serious symptoms from being sick. I've had pneumonia before - it sucked, but it's not worse than a zombie apocalypse, which is what the general public would create if this was a slightly worse virus. Our so-advanced civilization is just one or two steps away from cannibalism and beating each other with bones at the best of times; that's what this should teach us.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 20, 2020, 01:40:48 PM
...just one or two steps away from cannibalism and beating each other with bones at the best of times; that's what this should teach us.

One thing it has done is to establish the prepper mentality. During the cold war, more people had long-term stocks of essentials. We were told to crawl under our desks in case of nuclear attacks at school, but at home, prepper supplies were stock-piled. Freeze-dried food was big, but not toilet paper. Now we are still hiding in fall-out shelterss - just not underground.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 20, 2020, 01:50:05 PM
To be a modern-day prepper, we don't need ham radios, our cell phones and internet will work so long as we have crank-powered battery supplies. Solar power and wind turbines may help, but cranks are essential. I have a crank-powered radio in case of power outages, and someone should sell some foot-treadle generators, possibly made from old Singer treadle sewing machines. All it would take to wreck our civilization is a few EMP bursts or asteroid incursions, not to mention mutated SARS viruses. Faraday cages to store our electronics would help, also.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 20, 2020, 02:08:41 PM
To be a modern-day prepper, we don't need ham radios, our cell phones and internet will work so long as we have crank-powered battery supplies. Solar power and wind turbines may help, but cranks are essential. I have a crank-powered radio in case of power outages, and someone should sell some foot-treadle generators, possibly made from old Singer treadle sewing machines. All it would take to wreck our civilization is a few EMP bursts or asteroid incursions, not to mention mutated SARS viruses. Faraday cages to store our electronics would help, also.

Microwave ovens work as a faraday cage due to the need to contain the energy it produces. Just open the door, and place the item you want to shield inside it.

Just don't turn on the microwave, that would be bad.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 20, 2020, 03:16:45 PM
Cell phones require networks and access points that are susceptible to EMP attack.  Without the network, a cell phone is effectively just a digital camera.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 20, 2020, 03:19:58 PM
Cell phones require networks and access points that are susceptible to EMP attack.  Without the network, a cell phone is effectively just a digital camera.

Well, aside from anything that is loaded on the phone. But with a number of "helpful" apps that will allow for local storage, but wants to talk to a central server before letting you access the material anyway, that's a major problem in a scenario where the Internet isn't coming back anytime soon.

Hope you have it in PDF form, or some other kind of un-encrypted documentation that can be read by other means.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 20, 2020, 03:59:13 PM
I wonder if asthma inhalers would help some of these people breathe. Always talk with your doctor of course but it might be worth a shot especially if you are going to die anyway because you can't breathe.

I'm going to repeat the thing about the masks again. The thing is the constant refrain is only wear them if you are sick meaning if you are contagious and spreading the disease. So who is sick and contagious and spreading the disease? Nobody knows. Most of the people may have mild to no symptoms. In that case it is much safer to assume that anyone and everyone could have it so we should all be wearing masks, once there are enough of them for everyone of course, and that should be soon. Many doctors are thinking this is being spread primarily by asymptomatic carriers, the stealth infection vectors.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2020, 04:49:58 PM
Trump is having 500M masks made, so when that happens you can throw a parade and everybody can wear their mask, grope their face, and spread infection. Also I guess that would mean the end of beards.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Fenring on March 20, 2020, 04:59:25 PM
...just one or two steps away from cannibalism and beating each other with bones at the best of times; that's what this should teach us.

One thing it has done is to establish the prepper mentality. During the cold war, more people had long-term stocks of essentials. We were told to crawl under our desks in case of nuclear attacks at school, but at home, prepper supplies were stock-piled. Freeze-dried food was big, but not toilet paper. Now we are still hiding in fall-out shelterss - just not underground.

I don't think anyone has a prepper mentality even now. If they did they'd be doing things other than buying flour, toilet paper, and stupid masks. What they have now is sound-bite panic mentality where the 'foresight' is about 2 seconds in advance of the danger, and for the most part they aren't even prepping for the appropriate danger. A real prepper mentality would be a nation-wide movement towards learning hard nature skills such as using rope, making fires, growing food, and maybe hunting and skinning animals. That's not going to happen anytime soon, as afaik that sort of survivalist thing is still a fringes hobby. Sitting at home waiting out the problem is not prepping, it's just holing in hoping it passes. It's pretty much the opposite of prepping.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 20, 2020, 07:46:40 PM
Is there any doubt that many, many people will listen to and believe what the president is selling, and will simply disregard Fauci's diplomatic efforts to correct him?
Fauci fact-checks Trump at presser (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/03/20/trump-anthony-fauci-coronavirus-drugs-gupta-ip-vpx.cnn)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 20, 2020, 08:24:34 PM
Is there any doubt that many, many people will listen to and believe what the president is selling, and will simply disregard Fauci's diplomatic efforts to correct him?
Fauci fact-checks Trump at presser (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/03/20/trump-anthony-fauci-coronavirus-drugs-gupta-ip-vpx.cnn)

Another bad editing job by CNN. Trump was inclusive of all remedies being explored and was adamant about NOT claiming the possible drugs were cures. The metrics from the research to date shows limited, but real success, not 100% vetted cure. Fauci repeated what Trump said, and repeated that the mentioned drugs were not completely through the research process yet. Fauci is totally behind Trump and has not contradicted him.

What Trump was doing was using the Bully Pulpit to offer hope to those who are frightened. The word he put out was that there will be a good future. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but it will come. Without that hope, the economy may collapse and cause more downside than the Coronavirus, itself.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 20, 2020, 08:26:49 PM
Interesting article on copper. Maybe it will make a comeback.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xgqkyw/copper-destroys-viruses-and-bacteria-why-isnt-it-everywhere?utm_source=pocket-newtab

"On copper surfaces, bacteria and viruses die. When a microbe lands on a copper surface, the copper releases ions, which are electrically charged particles. Those copper ions blast through the outer membranes and destroy the whole cell, including the DNA or RNA inside. Because their DNA and RNA are destroyed, it also means a bacteria or virus can’t mutate and become resistant to the copper, or pass on genes (like for antibiotic resistance) to other microbes."

I think if I ever buy a new house and have it built I'll try to work in a lot of copper and brass.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 20, 2020, 08:39:51 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-immunity-test-090033681.html

"The UK is “very close” to developing an antibodies test that will determine whether someone has had coronavirus and is now immune, according to a former government adviser."

That could help get things back to a semblance of normalcy a lot more quickly if it works out.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 21, 2020, 09:25:01 AM
A couple of scholarly articles on the spread of the virus:

The Hammer and the Dance (https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56)

Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 21, 2020, 09:25:27 AM
It looks like they checked into the copper angle. Better than most surfaces but it still takes a while.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-live-surfaces-days-cant-110011416.html

"A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Tuesday found that coronavirus could be detected up to three hours after aerosolization in the air, up to four hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to two to three days on plastic and stainless steel."

The thing people are worried about with the packages is if the person who delivers them puts the virus on them. I'm being careful about taking the stuff out of the packages without getting it infected and then just throwing the boxes into recycling.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 21, 2020, 12:25:17 PM
I'm really curious if the copper is the bright copper that has been cleaned of oxidation, or the brown oxidized copper.  It is probably the former which isn't much use - since it is the reactivity of the copper that kills the virus, but oxidized copper isn't very reactive.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 21, 2020, 12:59:29 PM
I think we need to consider that "can live up to" on surface X doesn't necessarily mean viable and/or transferable. I don't have the data at hand but I read that the half-life of CV19 is fairly rapid on non-organic surfaces.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 21, 2020, 01:38:12 PM
I've been thinking about what an acceptable hospitalization and death rate would be in order for authorities to determine a populace-wide shutdown is no longer needed. For the record, I believe many of the shut-down measures being taken across the general populace are unwise.

The data on widely available treatments like chloroquine seem to point to the ability to significantly drive down or eliminate serious infection cases.

If making these drugs available to the majority of the population means that getting infected would result in a net hospitalization rate equal or less than traditional flu, would we take our finger off the panic button?

In empirical terms, would we be ok with resuming normality with a death rate leveling out around 130-ish per day?

My underlying assumption is that maintaining the status quo until a vaccine is developed is a non-starter. Keep in mind the overall efficacy rate for the current flu vaccine, which has been under development for over 10 years, is roughly 30%.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 21, 2020, 01:49:30 PM
When considering the death rate, consider how quickly it's falling as data collection improves:

Quote
4.06% March 8 (22 deaths of 541 cases)
3.69% March 9 (26 of 704)
3.01% March 10 (30 of 994)
2.95% March 11 (38 of 1,295)
2.52% March 12 (42 of 1,695)
2.27% March 13 (49 of 2,247)
1.93% March 14 (57 of 2,954)
1.84% March 15 (68 of 3,680)
1.90% March 16 (86 of 4,503)
1.76% March 17 (109 of 6,196)
1.66% March 18 (150 of 9,003)
1.51% March 19th (208 of 13,789)
1.32% March 20th (256 of 19,383)

At some point, it will level off and it's expected the fatality ratio in the general U.S. population will vary from 0.05% to 1%. If the promise of a cure holds out, we'll nearly eliminate the worries of death from this virus.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 21, 2020, 01:53:08 PM
Keep hope alive.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 21, 2020, 02:07:54 PM
Ugh. I have plenty of hope in science and reality. Less in the emotionally driven nonsense being bleated 24x7 right now.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 21, 2020, 02:22:42 PM
I've been thinking about what an acceptable hospitalization and death rate would be in order for authorities to determine a populace-wide shutdown is no longer needed. For the record, I believe many of the shut-down measures being taken across the general populace are unwise.

The data on widely available treatments like chloroquine seem to point to the ability to significantly drive down or eliminate serious infection cases.

If making these drugs available to the majority of the population means that getting infected would result in a net hospitalization rate equal or less than traditional flu, would we take our finger off the panic button?

In empirical terms, would we be ok with resuming normality with a death rate leveling out around 130-ish per day?

My underlying assumption is that maintaining the status quo until a vaccine is developed is a non-starter. Keep in mind the overall efficacy rate for the current flu vaccine, which has been under development for over 10 years, is roughly 30%.
A few responses to this: the rate of transmission, if left unchecked (by social distancing, self-isolation and other suppression measures) will increase exponentially.  Every day that the virus is allowed to spread without resistance makes it much more difficult to gain control of the situation. The goal of the immediate, radical, isolation measure is not meant to be long-term - it is to buy time, time during which we need to avoid overloading the medical system, time to educate the public, and time to come up with methods of reducing the spread of the virus and treating the virus for those infected.

As for possible treatments, including chloroquine - they are still, as yet, unproven, and not readily available in quantities to treat the currently critically-infected.  Acting as if they are available, in place, and proven would be crazy at this point.  Hope in unproven cures may be great for one's dopamine levels, but hope is not a plan.

Long term, the question is not the number of dead per day, but rather an acceptable transmission rate.  Anything above an 'R' factor of 1.0 will lead to, again, exponential growth in the infected and will quickly overload our ability to deal with the situation.  Once we have got the transmission rate down to a manageable level, some of the suppression tools will be put back on the shelf (ready to be brought back into play in cases of flare ups).

Nature: QC vs HQC (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-020-0156-0)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 21, 2020, 04:09:25 PM
As for possible treatments, including chloroquine - they are still, as yet, unproven, and not readily available in quantities to treat the currently critically-infected. 

Not true.

"In the early in vitro studies, chloroquine was found to block COVID-19 infection at low-micromolar concentration, with a half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) of 1.13 μM and a half-cytotoxic concentration (CC50) greater than 100 μM (4). A number of subsequent clinical trials []
have been quickly conducted in China to test the efficacy and safety of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia in more than 10 hospitals in Wuhan, Jingzhou, Guangzhou, Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, and Ningbo (5). Thus far, results from more than 100 patients have demonstrated that chloroquine phosphate is superior to the control treatment in inhibiting the exacerbation of pneumonia, improving lung imaging findings, promoting a virusnegative conversion, and shortening the disease course according to the news briefing. Severe adverse reactions to chloroquine phosphate were not noted in the aforementioned patients. "

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bst/advpub/0/advpub_2020.01047/_pdf

Not exhaustive (no COVID-19 specific tests are exhaustive yet), but not unproven.

Additionally Bayer has already donated 3 million chloroquine tablets to the federal government, with Novartis, Mylan and Teva to also collectively supply hundreds of millions of chloroquine tablets. Those seem like readily available quantities to me.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/new-commitments-mylan-and-teva-move-to-supply-tens-millions-hydroxychloroquine-tablets-to
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 21, 2020, 04:42:18 PM
I've been thinking about what an acceptable hospitalization and death rate would be in order for authorities to determine a populace-wide shutdown is no longer needed. For the record, I believe many of the shut-down measures being taken across the general populace are unwise.

The data on widely available treatments like chloroquine seem to point to the ability to significantly drive down or eliminate serious infection cases.

If making these drugs available to the majority of the population means that getting infected would result in a net hospitalization rate equal or less than traditional flu, would we take our finger off the panic button?

In empirical terms, would we be ok with resuming normality with a death rate leveling out around 130-ish per day?

Hospitalization rate is the wrong metric, 20% is problematic, but able to be addressed/expanded upon. It's the rate of people going into the ICU or onto ventilators that they need to drive down. If they can bring down the ratio of people going into the ICU down to rates normally seen in other illnesses(like the flu), things will likely open up again.

Likewise, the death rate is being driven by the ones needing to go into the ICU, so by dropping that number(ICU), you've dropped the other(death rate).

However, the 20% Hospitalization rate may not appreciably change. It depends on if the treatment options that get identified require some degree of medical supervision beyond an OTC prescription, or showing up somewhere to get a shot every day or more with some period of basic medical supervision after.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 21, 2020, 04:51:09 PM
A few responses to this: the rate of transmission, if left unchecked (by social distancing, self-isolation and other suppression measures) will increase exponentially.  Every day that the virus is allowed to spread without resistance makes it much more difficult to gain control of the situation. The goal of the immediate, radical, isolation measure is not meant to be long-term - it is to buy time, time during which we need to avoid overloading the medical system, time to educate the public, and time to come up with methods of reducing the spread of the virus and treating the virus for those infected.

As for possible treatments, including chloroquine - they are still, as yet, unproven, and not readily available in quantities to treat the currently critically-infected.  Acting as if they are available, in place, and proven would be crazy at this point.  Hope in unproven cures may be great for one's dopamine levels, but hope is not a plan.

Long term, the question is not the number of dead per day, but rather an acceptable transmission rate.  Anything above an 'R' factor of 1.0 will lead to, again, exponential growth in the infected and will quickly overload our ability to deal with the situation.  Once we have got the transmission rate down to a manageable level, some of the suppression tools will be put back on the shelf (ready to be brought back into play in cases of flare ups).

Yes and no. Viable and proven treatment options change the calculus on "acceptable transmission levels" as the calculus on which part of the medical system is being strained changes with it. "Supervised beds" are a lot more fungible (as they may not require a nurse, volunteers with a few hours of basic training may do), while ICU units and advanced respiration options are not.

The calculus once treatment options are identified becomes availability of those treatment options. Which becomes a question of how quickly they can scale production of those options to be able to address likely demand for it. So long as availability of the treatment is able to stay ahead of the curve for spread, they're golden. This can be achieved by delaying the end of the more extensive quarantine efforts until they deem a "sufficient stockpile" is on hand. In either case, we're probably still talking about late May, early June at the earliest(assuming a treatment is proven in the next week or two). But that's still a lot better than possibly still being locked down into July.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 21, 2020, 05:15:10 PM
Quote
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus is spreading rapidly, and scientists are endeavoring to discover drugs for its efficacious treatment in China. Chloroquine phosphate, an old drug for treatment of malaria, is shown to have apparent efficacy and acceptable safety against COVID-19 associated pneumonia in multicenter clinical trials conducted in China. The drug is recommended to be included in the next version of the Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Pneumonia Caused by COVID-19 issued by the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China for treatment of COVID-19 infection in larger populations in the future.

Source nih. So it's proven, as long as you want to trust the PRC national health commission.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 21, 2020, 05:30:10 PM
https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-8633/chloroquine-oral/details

The other good news about chloroquine is it appears to be available as an oral medication, so no hospitalization required.

Get diagnosed with Covid-19 by your doctor(need test kits!), get a prescription, go to the pharmacy pick up your prescription(need sufficient supplies available in the system), no hospital stay required can stay at home.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 22, 2020, 12:48:27 PM
There are some people here with more biochemistry background than I have.  Anybody want take a shot at 'splaining what this article means (https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-lab.html)?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 22, 2020, 01:06:11 PM
There are some people here with more biochemistry background than I have.  Anybody want take a shot at 'splaining what this article means (https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-lab.html)?

I will agree with this bit given the number of other sources and people supporting it:
Quote
"Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus," they write in the journal article.

However, that does not mean the articles headline is correct:
Quote
The coronavirus did not escape from a lab. Here's how we know.

Because labs are known to culture and research virus samples found in the wild, as it is a primary basis for a lot of research. So it very easily could have been cultured and under study in a Lab in the Wuhan Province which subsequently escaped the containment protocols in place for it. (Or was deliberately released)

But I'm comfortable enough with the assertions that this virus was created by nature, not man. The vectors behind it initially spreading in Wuhan are another matter that will likely forever remain under debate.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 22, 2020, 01:08:07 PM
There are some people here with more biochemistry background than I have.  Anybody want take a shot at 'splaining what this article means (https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-lab.html)?

If you were to design a virus based on SARS, you would use simulation to determine what variations to make.  The mutations that occured are counter-intuitive (from simulation you would conclude that the mutations wouldn't be beneficial to get the desired result so a group intent on weaponizing a preexisting virus wouldn't have chosen those particular mutations in the 'receptor binding domain' - the piece of the virus that binds the human receptor).

Also the virus is more closely related to viruses in other species that SARS and other viruses that already target humans - finding a virus in a different species and then trying to retarget it to humans would likely be far more difficult than weaponizing existing viruses, since it would be impossible to know if the novel virus would even cause illness, be easy to spread, etc.

Both of these suggest it is of natural origin.

As TheDeamon says natural origin doesn't mean "didn't escape from a lab" - but that seems extremely unlikely.  They would have had to discover it after in infected someone, but completely prevented its spread to isolate and study. Then have it escape and have massive uncontrolled spread without realising it had escaped.  This also would have had to escape our and every other intelligence agency as the lab it escaped from would have been massively panicking.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 22, 2020, 01:17:46 PM
Quote
As TheDeamon says natural origin doesn't mean "didn't escape from a lab" - but that seems extremely unlikely.  They would have had to discover it after in infected someone, but completely prevented its spread to isolate and study. Then have it escape and have massive uncontrolled spread without realising it had escaped.  This also would have had to escape our and every other intelligence agency as the lab it escaped from would have been massively panicking.

This makes both intuitive and logical sense to me.  Conspiracy theorists would think the opposite because conspiracy theories always take contrarian views of their "facts".
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 22, 2020, 01:33:43 PM
As TheDeamon says natural origin doesn't mean "didn't escape from a lab" - but that seems extremely unlikely.  They would have had to discover it after in infected someone, but completely prevented its spread to isolate and study. Then have it escape and have massive uncontrolled spread without realising it had escaped.  This also would have had to escape our and every other intelligence agency as the lab it escaped from would have been massively panicking.

In a deliberate release scenario, massive panic is questionable, given it was intentionally released. Although keeping the people at the lab silent is another matter, but this is China we're talking about...

I'm personally inclined to suspect a natural source, with no lab involvement at any step in the chain, but I'm not going to say the possibility is completely out of bounds. It just requires too many things to line up "just so" for it to work that way, and I don't find that particularly credible at this time. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 22, 2020, 01:56:15 PM
...In a deliberate release scenario, massive panic is questionable, given it was intentionally released. Although keeping the people at the lab silent is another matter, but this is China we're talking about...

It would take a single breach to release the virus. All viruses exist in labs in order for vaccines and other treatments to be created, in order for these agents to be available when/if the viruses enter the general population. Anything in the lab is sure to exist in the wild. The lab specimen may be nurtured to provide the samples needed for research. The lab cultures may be stronger than the original strains, so their release would be much more impactful. A single doctor or researcher could accidentally cause a breach, without knowing they did - or on purpose if so inclined or coerced.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 22, 2020, 02:16:33 PM
...In a deliberate release scenario, massive panic is questionable, given it was intentionally released. Although keeping the people at the lab silent is another matter, but this is China we're talking about...

It would take a single breach to release the virus. All viruses exist in labs in order for vaccines and other treatments to be created, in order for these agents to be available when/if the viruses enter the general population. Anything in the lab is sure to exist in the wild. The lab specimen may be nurtured to provide the samples needed for research. The lab cultures may be stronger than the original strains, so their release would be much more impactful. A single doctor or researcher could accidentally cause a breach, without knowing they did - or on purpose if so inclined or coerced.

And so we have Conspiracy Theory A, a fine if simplistic example of the genre :).  The question I have is if that's the case, what does it matter?  It's natural, it "escaped" into the wild as any natural pathogen would, nobody can point to who did it, when or how it escaped.  It's like the opposite of a locked room mystery, because you know all the details and none of them matter.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 06:34:22 AM
First Florida, now California: Crowds pack California beaches, bike paths and trails (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/us/california-stay-at-home-beach-goers/index.html)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 23, 2020, 06:39:26 AM
The state motto of New Hampshire, "Live Free Or Die!" was taken from a toast that finished with, "Death is not the worst of evils."  We may find out if those people thought it through to the end.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 23, 2020, 08:28:35 AM
...In a deliberate release scenario, massive panic is questionable, given it was intentionally released. Although keeping the people at the lab silent is another matter, but this is China we're talking about...

It would take a single breach to release the virus. All viruses exist in labs in order for vaccines and other treatments to be created, in order for these agents to be available when/if the viruses enter the general population. Anything in the lab is sure to exist in the wild. The lab specimen may be nurtured to provide the samples needed for research. The lab cultures may be stronger than the original strains, so their release would be much more impactful. A single doctor or researcher could accidentally cause a breach, without knowing they did - or on purpose if so inclined or coerced.

And so we have Conspiracy Theory A, a fine if simplistic example of the genre :).  The question I have is if that's the case, what does it matter?  It's natural, it "escaped" into the wild as any natural pathogen would, nobody can point to who did it, when or how it escaped.  It's like the opposite of a locked room mystery, because you know all the details and none of them matter.

It’s amazing to see who defends China
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 23, 2020, 08:41:07 AM
Quote
It’s amazing to see who defends China

Curious to understand how you think what I said is a defense of China.  What exactly do you think China did that this conspiracy theory has called out?

You take every opportunity to distort context to suit your biases, so if you respond I expect you to use your usual thoughtful eloquence, like "Well, so do you!"
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 23, 2020, 10:34:17 AM
Playing stupid is not the defense you think it is.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 23, 2020, 10:48:46 AM
Playing stupid is not the defense you think it is.

Just for a little variety, how about actually responding for a change?  When you don't it leaves the obvious impression that you have no answer, so you resort to just mouthing off, like now.  When you consistently avoid responding, people might start to think you're just a troll.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 10:59:32 AM
And this is one reason why politicians and world leaders need to be careful with their words: Chloroquine poisonings in Lagos (https://allafrica.com/stories/202003230256.html)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 23, 2020, 12:57:21 PM
And this is one reason why politicians and world leaders need to be careful with their words: Chloroquine poisonings in Lagos (https://allafrica.com/stories/202003230256.html)

And this is precisely why one should think about what they're reading. Every medication ever invented can be overdosed on. I can't believe that needs to be explained. In the Nigeria case, people were taking as much as 2 grams at a time. Go get a prescription bottle, you probably have one, any of them say to take 2 grams? This drug has been around and in use for over 70 years, it's well understood and safe to take. India is now pushing it as well to pre-treat for Chinese flu.

What you're trying to do here is keep the fear in play, keep everyone scared. It's *censored*ing irresponsible and you should be ashamed of yourself. Spreading this kind of crap should be a bannable offense here.

Meanwhile, in NY, Cuomo said the state had acquired 750,000 doses of chloroquine and 70,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine and they're blowing them out into multiple large scale trails. Both Cuomo and Trump have said they're "optimistic" about these drugs and early results are extremely encouraging.

Stop the fear-mongering. It's disgraceful.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 23, 2020, 01:07:15 PM
A French study cited a good success rate. That's great if it holds up in larger populations, but let's be clear that its not a magic bullet that significantly protects from overloading healthcare systems. It would keep a lot of people from being quite as sick.

Quote
Didier Raoult, director of a university hospital institute in  Marseille, explained that he had conducted a clinical trial in which he treated 25 Covid-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine. After six days, he said, only 25 percent of patients who took this drug still had the virus in their body. By contrast, 90 percent of those who had not taken hydroxychloroquine continued to carry the Covid-19.

In the wake of this announcement, French pharmaceutical giant Sanofi offered to donate millions of Plaquenil (a trade name for hydroxychloroquine) to continue the tests, while the French government’s spokesperson Sibeth Ndiaye hailed the “promising results” and promised to expand clinical trials for this treatment.

In France, some pharmacies have reportedly been overwhelmed by demand for the drug over the past few days. However, many voices soon pointed out that people should not jump to the conclusion that hydroxychloroquine is a proven miracle cure.

“This study seems promising, but we have to be really careful before raising hope when it comes to a virus as new as this one, for which we don’t yet have a lot of data,” said Sarah D’Alessandro, a professor of molecular medicine at the University of Milan and a malaria specialist who has worked on hydroxychloroquine.

WHO is launching larger scale trials to determine if a sample size greater than 25 shows the same result.

From their page:

Quote
Researchers in France have published a study in which they treated 20 COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine. They concluded that the drug significantly reduced viral load in nasal swabs. But it was not a randomized controlled trial and it didn’t report clinical outcomes such as deaths. In guidance published on Friday, the U.S. Society of Critical Care Medicine said “there is insufficient evidence to issue a recommendation on the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in critically ill adults with COVID-19.”

Hydroxychloroquine, in particular, might do more harm than good. The drug has a variety of side effects and can in rare cases harm the heart. Because people with heart conditions are at higher risk of severe COVID-19, that is a concern, says David Smith, an infectious disease physician at the University of California, San Diego. “This is a warning signal, but we still need to do the trial,” he says. What’s more, a rush to use the drug for COVID-19 might make it harder for the people who need it to treat their rheumatoid arthritis or malaria.

So we have French pharmacies getting the toilet paper treatment on the drug, and its getting scarce for people who have a proven clinical need.

So the right note is "cautious optimism". Not "giddy excitement".
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 23, 2020, 01:28:01 PM
And this is one reason why politicians and world leaders need to be careful with their words: Chloroquine poisonings in Lagos (https://allafrica.com/stories/202003230256.html)

I'll see your dumb-people-can-OD-on-anything article and raise you with India's recommendation:

https://swarajyamag.com/amp/story/insta%2Fcovid-19-india-recommends-hydroxychloroquine-as-prophylaxis-for-healthcare-providers-patient-family-members
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 23, 2020, 02:19:39 PM
A French study cited a good success rate. That's great if it holds up in larger populations, but let's be clear that its not a magic bullet that significantly protects from overloading healthcare systems. It would keep a lot of people from being quite as sick.

I think a lot of people are going to be thinking twice about using that drug as "a protection" against Covid-19 after they've taken it, or see what it does to the people who take it. I've heard enough stories from other Veterans who've had to use that drug for it's original intended purpose to know that I won't be taking unless I'm certain I need to take.

I'd rather start dosing myself with Exlax absent a need a to so.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 23, 2020, 03:05:44 PM
So it messes up your GI?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 23, 2020, 03:16:56 PM
So it messes up your GI?

My understanding is it does a bit more than that. It's an anti-malarial drug, and it does that by killing most parasitic(and symbiotic) organisms in your body which will in turn limit malaria's ability to remain active in your system. I reported on my ship less than a week after the entire crew had been given the drug after they had made a humanitarian visit to East Timor back in 2000. It was described as a very miserable experience by them, and other people in my extended social network who were in the army and other branches who've had occasion to get the anti-malaria treatment report essentially the same thing. It is very unpleasant, and expect activity from all three avenues. Vomiting, diarrhea, and a lot of peeing happens, your body also may try to sweat some of it out.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 23, 2020, 03:21:35 PM
This is a really good idea happening in my back yard, funded by Gates.

SCAN (Seattle Coronavirus Assessment Network)

Basically, you answer a few questions on the website and depending on what attributes they're looking for on that day they may send you a test kit. This is in addition to more widely executed testing and, from what I can tell, is being used as a sampling mechanism to get a better handle on how things are moving in near-real time.

They shut it down as soon as they hit the threshold of how many submissions they need for the day (don't know what that number is).


https://scanpublichealth.org/
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 23, 2020, 03:23:20 PM
The state motto of New Hampshire, "Live Free Or Die!" was taken from a toast that finished with, "Death is not the worst of evils."  We may find out if those people thought it through to the end.

The problem is, in this scenario, the people who die probably won't the be ones who decided to "live free." Instead, it'll be everyone else. Sure a few people in the "live free" grouping will get their just deserts as well, but only a small fraction of them.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 23, 2020, 04:02:30 PM
The state motto of New Hampshire, "Live Free Or Die!" was taken from a toast that finished with, "Death is not the worst of evils."  We may find out if those people thought it through to the end.

The problem is, in this scenario, the people who die probably won't the be ones who decided to "live free." Instead, it'll be everyone else. Sure a few people in the "live free" grouping will get their just deserts as well, but only a small fraction of them.

That's always the problem with living free, that somebody has to pay for it.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 23, 2020, 05:02:08 PM
...It's natural, it "escaped" into the wild as any natural pathogen would, nobody can point to who did it, when or how it escaped.  It's like the opposite of a locked room mystery, because you know all the details and none of them matter.

No, you haven't understood what you read. The pathogen originated in the wild, and the labs only took a sample and nurtured it to create a strong specimen for creating vaccines and other treatments. It doesn't need to have escaped from any lab to be spread. There is no mystery, and no conspiracy theory. A lab may have released something, or not. Makes no difference. It was already out there.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 23, 2020, 05:10:16 PM
So, what was your point?  To reassure us that the Chinese aren't responsible for unleashing the virus, and neither are the lab or the US?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 23, 2020, 06:41:19 PM
Behind the mask:

Quote
Hospitals nationwide are facing an acute shortage of PPE (personal protective equipment) such as N95 masks, gloves and surgical gowns amid the coronavirus pandemic. In the United States, more than 38,000 Americans have been infected across all 50 states, and at least 414 people have died.
In light of this desperate need, Roman said 3M's N95 masks should not be showing up in stores, he told CNBC.

Roman said he was "disappointed" that the masks were selling in some stores over the weekend, alluding to Target.

Target (TGT) said a select number of stores in the Seattle area were selling the N95 masks "in error."
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 23, 2020, 08:29:27 PM
So, what was your point?  To reassure us that the Chinese aren't responsible for unleashing the virus, and neither are the lab or the US?

The point was in answering The Deamon's post speculating about labs purposefully releasing the virus. It can be done - but so what? It was already out there spreading while the labs were trying to find cures.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 23, 2020, 08:53:02 PM
So, what was your point?  To reassure us that the Chinese aren't responsible for unleashing the virus, and neither are the lab or the US?

The point was in answering The Deamon's post speculating about labs purposefully releasing the virus. It can be done - but so what? It was already out there spreading while the labs were trying to find cures.

There is the option where China could be running some "black" medical experiments on humans where they're deliberately exposing some of their "disappeared" persons with Corona Virus strains to see if any "good viral candidates" appear. In which case the first human case happened in a lab setting where they had control, before they decided to release Covid-19 into the general population of Wuhan.

I don't seriously believe it went down that way, but given China's record on human rights, I wouldn't exactly be shocked if someone managed to produce proof. But good luck to anyone actually getting their hands on such evidence of sufficient quality and quantity if it ever existed.

It would make for a near perfect cover regarding the source of the virus as it truly wasn't engineered. It did happen "in nature" after all, just a number of other factors were more controlled than most people would be comfortable contemplating.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 11:42:09 PM
And another chloroquine poisoning: Arizona man dies (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/health/arizona-coronavirus-chloroquine-death/index.html)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 24, 2020, 12:11:48 AM
"Make masks ubiquitous

There is very little data showing that flat surgical masks protect healthy individuals from disease. Nonetheless, Asian countries generally make it mandatory that people wear them. The Asian approach is less about data than it is about crowd psychology, experts explained.

All experts agree that the sick must wear masks to keep in their coughs. But if a mask indicates that the wearer is sick, many people will be reluctant to wear one. If everyone is required to wear masks, the sick automatically have one on and there is no stigma attached."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/harsh-steps-needed-stop-coronavirus-114040150.html

If this would have been done from the start I suggest we wouldn't even have a problem right now. And I'm concerned, again, that with our government insisting that masks don't work for the general public and saying that only because there is a shortage right now and the medical people need them more, that when there is no longer a shortage we're going to be stuck with that very bad advice. Sure having to wear a mask all the time is going to be a bummer but compared to what we're going through now it'll be an improvement. In that big church in South Korea where so many got infected masks were not allowed. Everyone wearing masks is the only way to make sure the asymptomatic carriers including the super spreaders wear them.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 24, 2020, 12:55:40 AM
And another chloroquine poisoning: Arizona man dies (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/health/arizona-coronavirus-chloroquine-death/index.html)

Keep trying. Maybe at some point this won't be a highly effective treatment and you can be “right”.

An Arizona man has died after ingesting chloroquine phosphate.... The toxic ingredient they consumed was not the medication form of chloroquine, used to treat malaria in humans. Instead, it was an ingredient listed on a parasite treatment for fish."
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 24, 2020, 01:17:03 AM
If this would have been done from the start I suggest we wouldn't even have a problem right now.

We don't have 8 billion masks * 60 days * 3 mask per day (we don't have reusable masks currently - a mask that is reused can increase your risk of contaigon because they can't be properly sterilized).  Also the sick people in the US weren't wearing them because they didn't know they were sick, not due to a social stigma from wearing a mask.

Quote
And I'm concerned, again, that with our government insisting that masks don't work for the general public and saying that only because there is a shortage right now and the medical people need them more, that when there is no longer a shortage we're going to be stuck with that very bad advice. Sure having to wear a mask all the time is going to be a bummer but compared to what we're going through now it'll be an improvement. In that big church in South Korea where so many got infected masks were not allowed. Everyone wearing masks is the only way to make sure the asymptomatic carriers including the super spreaders wear them.

The government has never said that they don't work for preventing sick people from spreading germs, and the US hasn't had the same social stigma associated with wearing masks as Asia, so the 'fear of stigma' isn't really an issue here currently.

It may be a good idea to create a social trend where people wear masks all the time every day for long term - but we will have to

As to 'super spreaders' - they are usually people who 'feel fine' when they are ill and thus don't have to reduce their social contact and have a variety of social contacts (ie someone who does a lot of international travel and meets many people).  There are also people with a weaker immune response that allow the virus to replicate to higher concentrations.  They aren't necessarily poorer hygenic practices, or more symptomatic.

There is research on reusable masks - but properly sanitizing them goes well beyond simply washing them.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 24, 2020, 01:28:00 AM
Also the 'danger' of infection is related to the particle size.  Larger droplets that masks stop - tend to cause upper respiratory infections.  The small and aerosolized droplets aren't stopped by masks very well (they can go around the edges of the masks fairly easily unless tightly sealed which those who aren't medical professionals essentially never properly seal them - indeed many medical professionals don't properly seal them either) and cause lower respiratory infections.

The lower respiratory infections are much more likely to result in pneumonia, hospitalization, and death.

So people wearing masks improperly may actually increase the number of lower respiratory hospitalizations and deadly infections versus the less dangerous upper respiratory infections.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 24, 2020, 02:14:20 AM
As the saying goes, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Maybe this will all blow over and the masks won't be that necessary. In the long run they could even be counter productive for a reason not brought up yet and that is that they may be too effective and therefore act to reduce the workouts our natural immune systems get all the time by not letting us get exposed to all of the usual pathogens we meet, greet, and defeat every day.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 02:31:15 AM
And another chloroquine poisoning: Arizona man dies (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/health/arizona-coronavirus-chloroquine-death/index.html)

Oh my god. They drank fish tank cleaner. Stop spreading this kind of misinformation. Seriously asking, what is wrong with you?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 06:19:27 AM
And another chloroquine poisoning: Arizona man dies (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/health/arizona-coronavirus-chloroquine-death/index.html)

Oh my god. They drank fish tank cleaner. Stop spreading this kind of misinformation. Seriously asking, what is wrong with you?

Crunch, I assume you did a google search, but somehow the dozen or so sites on the first page of results I got that say things similar to this didn't come up for you:

Quote
Chloroquine phosphate is in a class of drugs called antimalarials and amebicides. It is used to prevent and treat malaria. It is also used to treat amebiasis. This medication is sometimes prescribed for other uses; ask your doctor or pharmacist for more information.

What the couple did was unquestionably stupid, but they're hardly alone in grasping at rumors and hearsay out of fear.  In this case, Trump is partially responsible for the death by promoting chloroquine as a wonder drug before any medical guidance has been issued for its efficacy to treat COVID-19.  A little over a week ago I had to go to 3 supermarkets to get garlic.  It seems that some people are thinking that if it works on vampires, maybe it will work for this.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 24, 2020, 06:25:21 AM
I'm trying to find the quote of Trump warning the public that although Chloroquine is being studied regarding possible uses against the coronavirus, that it can be toxic, can lead to death if misused, and should only be used as directed by a physician...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 06:35:16 AM
You obviously won't find it.  Trump knows (on some reptilian level) that people will die if he "restarts" the economy and if they rush to try each miracle cure he touts.  He's getting support from right wing outlets and commentators, and even from elected officials like:

Quote
Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said that senior citizens are willing to die from the coronavirus so that Trump can loosen restrictions on the economy.

How many of us are willing to do whatever it takes to win one for the gipper?  Sorry, that's better stated as How many should we let die because Trump thinks old people are expendable?  Start looking around at your neighbors to see who among them we can do without.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 07:20:16 AM
This is a whole new level of TDS. Some of you have truly cracked. Fish tank cleaner is not even remotely a drug to be used on humans nor has anyone suggested it is.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 07:25:35 AM
This is a whole new level of TDS. Some of you have truly cracked. Fish tank cleaner is not even remotely a drug to be used on humans nor has anyone suggested it is.

You missed the quote from the Texas Governor?  Let me repeat it for you:

Quote
Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said that senior citizens are willing to die from the coronavirus so that Trump can loosen restrictions on the economy.

What's the opposite of TDS?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 07:45:00 AM
You might want to get some rest too.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 24, 2020, 11:10:31 AM
Quote
Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said that senior citizens are willing to die from the coronavirus so that Trump can loosen restrictions on the economy.

How many of us are willing to do whatever it takes to win one for the gipper?  Sorry, that's better stated as How many should we let die because Trump thinks old people are expendable?  Start looking around at your neighbors to see who among them we can do without.

I haven't looked into the TX quote, but I doubt it's as intellectually vapid as you're suggesting.

Saving even one life is worth doing whatever it takes feels virtuous but is complete nonsense. There are many scenarios in which "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. They're just really difficult and unpleasant to wrestle with.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 11:43:55 AM
Quote
Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said that senior citizens are willing to die from the coronavirus so that Trump can loosen restrictions on the economy.

How many of us are willing to do whatever it takes to win one for the gipper?  Sorry, that's better stated as How many should we let die because Trump thinks old people are expendable?  Start looking around at your neighbors to see who among them we can do without.

I haven't looked into the TX quote, but I doubt it's as intellectually vapid as you're suggesting.

Saving even one life is worth doing whatever it takes feels virtuous but is complete nonsense. There are many scenarios in which "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. They're just really difficult and unpleasant to wrestle with.

That's true, but has there been any study or analysis of how many deaths would happen?  How many would be acceptable to you?  Some estimates go as high as 2.5 million.  If you have older relatives, are you ok if they die to make room for other people to live?  Would you sacrifice yourself?  If so, why are you obeying any of the restrictions that are in place now (assuming that you are)?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 24, 2020, 11:50:33 AM
Quote
That's true, but has there been any study or analysis of how many deaths would happen?  How many would be acceptable to you?  Some estimates go as high as 2.5 million.  If you have older relatives, are you ok if they die to make room for other people to live?  Would you sacrifice yourself?  If so, why are you obeying any of the restrictions that are in place now (assuming that you are)?

Some hard questions. I would probably be fine however my parents, aunts and uncles, other peoples families... probably not.  What am I, what are we, willing to sacrifice???

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 11:54:59 AM
Let's take a quick walk through

Quote
Patrick, who said he turns 70 next week, would be among the high-risk population that is most affected by the coronavirus. But he said people like him have to weigh the hazards to their personal health that the virus poses with the challenges to health of the American economy brought on by social distancing guidelines.

"No one reached out to me and said, 'As a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren?' And if that is the exchange, I'm all in," Patrick told Fox News.

He added, "My messages is that let's get back to work, let's get back to living. Let's be smart about it and those of us who are 70+, we'll take care of ourselves. But don't sacrifice the country."

So, as usual, there is an ongoing mischaracterization to fit a certain narrative so that the economy can continue crashing and hurt Trump in the election.

Patrick did not say all seniors were willing to die. Patrick said he would be willing to take that risk. He said to be smart about it (do I need to unpack that for you, can you guys be that deep in the TDS fever?) and let the 70+ team make the call about their own health (their body, their choice, right?).

We can't destroy the economy. That has its own health risks. There are solutions other than killing everyone over 65 or completely destroy the economy.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 12:03:01 PM
Quote
That's true, but has there been any study or analysis of how many deaths would happen?  How many would be acceptable to you?  Some estimates go as high as 2.5 million.  If you have older relatives, are you ok if they die to make room for other people to live?  Would you sacrifice yourself?  If so, why are you obeying any of the restrictions that are in place now (assuming that you are)?

Some hard questions. I would probably be fine however my parents, aunts and uncles, other peoples families... probably not.  What am I, what are we, willing to sacrifice???

Really hard.  In some senses it could turn out to be a Sophie's Choice for individuals to put themselves in harm's way on the belief that others will survive even if they don't.  Doctors are soon going to be making that choice for us, since there won't be nearly enough hospital beds, respirators if the number of cases rises as expected even with restrictions in place.  In that very likely scenario the care given to each patient will have to be triaged and evaluated against others with similar needs but different personal circumstances.  I know how I would choose if were forced to, but that's not how I would choose if there were other options.  Fortunately for all of us, there are.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 24, 2020, 12:04:20 PM
Quote
That's true, but has there been any study or analysis of how many deaths would happen?  How many would be acceptable to you?  Some estimates go as high as 2.5 million.  If you have older relatives, are you ok if they die to make room for other people to live?  Would you sacrifice yourself?  If so, why are you obeying any of the restrictions that are in place now (assuming that you are)?

Some hard questions. I would probably be fine however my parents, aunts and uncles, other peoples families... probably not.  What am I, what are we, willing to sacrifice???

Thank you. It feels like these are topics that nobody dares raise. I reject the notion on any number being "acceptable" but I know I'm just playing word games.

Bottom line is I don't know. We have the world's best epidemiologists trying to project best actions and outcomes, but  I haven't seen any leading economists being consulted on the potential effects of large scale collapse. It feels like the disease mitigation should be the first order discussion, but I can't help but think that measures resulting in a 50% unemployment rate carry massive destructive (read:fatalities) consequences of their own.

Are the 2.5 million worst-case guesses still valid? I was under the assumption that those scenarios were only valid if we ignored it and took no action, which clearly is not the case.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 12:05:42 PM
Quote
Patrick did not say all seniors were willing to die.

No one said he did, so why do you say that?  (Hint, for the usual reason)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 12:07:55 PM
Quote
Are the 2.5 million worst-case guesses still valid? I was under the assumption that those scenarios were only valid if we ignored it and took no action, which clearly is not the case.

Right, my number is inflated, but I don't have a better one.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 24, 2020, 12:12:34 PM
Right so if this were a big Sim City game and we were making choices that had radical, adverse effects on 100% of the population with the intent of preserving < .5% of the population, we'd lose the game.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 24, 2020, 12:13:53 PM
Are the 2.5 million worst-case guesses still valid? I was under the assumption that those scenarios were only valid if we ignored it and took no action, which clearly is not the case.

Yes, they are still valid as a worst case. Starting back up while the virus is still active just allows the process to start all over again. The probably 75k-200k who are going to get it in this wave aren't enough to provide any herd immunity benefits to society so the virus just starts spreading like crazy again and you are left with the choice to shut everything down again or let it overwhelm the health system.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 24, 2020, 12:16:51 PM
Yes, they are still valid as a worst case.

Do you have any links or sources that support this more recently?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 24, 2020, 12:21:18 PM
Right so if this were a big Sim City game and we were making choices that had radical, adverse effects on 100% of the population with the intent of preserving < .5% of the population, we'd lose the game.

Unless we also pumped a couple trillion into the economy for 2 months of shutdown and let the economy grow back to where it was pretty rapidly post shutdown. Would there still be some people who lost jobs/businesses permanently - most likely, would the overall economy rebound reasonably quickly - yes. Airlines and cruise ships are going to take it the worst. Its going to be longer than 2 months before we can reopen the wide spread flow of people. Given the right resources/help/cash most businesses will be able to weather the storm and come out on the other side ready to satisfy some pent up demand.

There already are some new opportunities for laid off wait staff. Amazon is hiring like crazy to keep up with demand, likewise other delivery services. Uber drivers can take a gig job delivering groceries. Its going to be bad, but this is the part of the problem that the government can solve by throwing money at it. Make unemployment insurance easy to get, sent out a UBI for 2-3 months, and make sure small businesses have the resources to open back up in 2-3 months.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 24, 2020, 12:23:47 PM
Yes, they are still valid as a worst case.

Do you have any links or sources that support this more recently?

A worst case if we do nothing? Or a realistic worst case taking into account the various shut downs and isolation that is going on?

The worst case if we do nothing is the same 1 month ago vs going back to normal today or in a week. I didn't look it up but none of the underlying modeling changes.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 24, 2020, 12:29:33 PM
"if we do nothing" is no longer valid, that was my point to the original guess no longer being valid if that was it's underlying assumption
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 24, 2020, 12:38:05 PM
"if we do nothing" is no longer valid, that was my point to the original guess no longer being valid if that was it's underlying assumption

The discussion was going around - cut our economic losses - reopen everything and go back to life "as normal." At that point the worst case is still the same worst case. That's the down side of shutting down everything as our primary tool - if you open back up too early it has no lasting effect. So the worst case is still valid for a Trump, get things back to normal in 2 weeks approach.

Under current conditions we will probably need 3-4 weeks of "shut down" to see the benefits. I think the most likely scenario is that the US surpasses both China and Italy in the total number of infections and end up with between 100k-200k infected. But that's just based off my own simple modeling and the hodgepodge reaction we're taking to it. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 24, 2020, 12:48:39 PM
Well, the worst case is probably somewhat less bad - since there will be at that point a number of people who will be immune, and we will have reset the clock on overloading the medical system by one month.  Additionally, the number of immune will have a slowing effect on the overall transmission speed of the virus.

That being said, the number of previously-infected will be so small that the beneficial effects will likely be almost negligible.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 24, 2020, 01:18:05 PM
The concern as I understand it is that resuming 'normal' life will likely mean a increase in the loss of life and overwhelm health care system.
Questions
- are we putting off the inevitable?
- is any loss of life acceptable? If so is their a tipping point? (When it affects our family) Who decides what is acceptable?
- What does a overwhelmed health care system mean? Are we putting at risk our health care workers? where do we put the sick if we run out of beds?
- Is their a way to find a balance between economics and health?

I think a balance is possible if everyone participates in the precautions. Problem their will always be those that won't and I suspect that number of people that won't doesn't have to be very big to undo any good of others taking the precautions. Back to is the question of inevitability... no... character, morals, virtue, values demand we try because if we don't what does that say about the world we are creating for ourselves to live in. What would be the point of living in such a world?

Will character and values matter in this partisan either or world or have we already been bought and sold?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 24, 2020, 01:28:23 PM
Depends what you mean by inevitable... by using a suppression philosophy, there will almost certainly be a reduction in total infections over the span of the pandemic.  Is it inevitable that the medical system will be overwhelmed?  The educated guess is 'No' so that is not inevitable, but a real risk.

Is any loss of life acceptable?  Well, it had better be, because there is no way to prevent 100% of deaths.   But yes, at some point, there will be diminishing returns tot he benefits of personal actions.  Should everybody quarantine themselves a year from now to avoid 1000 deaths per month?  No.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 24, 2020, 02:05:29 PM
Questions
- are we putting off the inevitable?
Maybe? Experts seem to think so.
Quote
- is any loss of life acceptable? If so is their a tipping point? (When it affects our family) Who decides what is acceptable?
We've proven that tens of thousands of annual deaths are acceptable (flu) before we would take these kinds of measures. Not really sure how you'd define who made that decision. Society?
Quote
- What does a overwhelmed health care system mean? Are we putting at risk our health care workers? where do we put the sick if we run out of beds?
Dunno. I haven't seen any reasonable data or forecasts around actual numbers.
Quote
- Is their a way to find a balance between economics and health?
There better be. Trump and the "experts" are going to make some tough decisions that will be unpopular with many. That's the nature of dealing with a crisis.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 02:07:51 PM
Here's a potentially valuable test (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-coronavirus-blood-test-antibodies) that would show who had developed coronavirus antibodies.  In theory (hopefully in practice, too), someone who tests positive for the antibodies can resume a normal lifestyle socially and at work. There are still questions about how long an immunity lasts and what percentage of the population would have to have immunity in order to roll back more widespread behavioral restrictions.

Quote
Just how many people actually have Covid-19? How long will it be before we can safely begin to ease social distancing? And is this a one-off crisis or are we now facing the threat of repeated waves of coronavirus pandemics on an annual basis?

These are all questions to which scientists around the globe are racing to answer through serological testing – detecting tell-tale antibodies in the blood to identify the real number of people in a population who have ever come in contact with the virus. Over the coming months, the results will determine everything from how long society’s shutdown needs to be, to evaluating the effectiveness of the new vaccines on the horizon.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 24, 2020, 02:15:41 PM
Quote
Dunno. I haven't seen any reasonable data or forecasts around actual numbers.
I'm not sure why you haven't seen this yet, but here you go: Imperial College COVID19 modelling (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf).
Quote
In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality.

<snip>

For an uncontrolled epidemic, we predict critical care bed capacity would be exceeded as early as the second week in April, with an eventual peak in ICU or critical care bed demand that is over 30 times greater than the maximum supply in both countries (Figure 2).
Those numbers are for an uncontrolled/unmitigated epidemic.  Clearly, some measures have been put into place.

If you remove those measures prematurely and willy nilly, you risk simply delaying the spike and not actually reducing total mortality significantly.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 24, 2020, 02:18:32 PM
On the testing front.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/24/820157519/to-end-the-coronavirus-crisis-we-need-widespread-testing-experts-say (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/24/820157519/to-end-the-coronavirus-crisis-we-need-widespread-testing-experts-say)

Quote
Stay inside, don't meet with friends, don't go to work — these are the messages coming from public health officials at every level of government. But increasingly, experts say they believe those stark warnings must be augmented with another message:

If you think you might be sick, even a little sick, get tested for coronavirus.

"Everyone staying home is just a very blunt measure. That's what you say when you've got really nothing else," says Emily Gurley, an associate scientist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "Being able to test folks is really the linchpin in getting beyond what we're doing now."
...
Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, says he believes that the Trump administration has some reason to set those guidelines. Early missteps created a huge shortage of tests in the U.S. "They're dealing with a reality, which is we have far fewer tests than we need right now," he says.

In addition to the lack of tests themselves, there are also reported shortages in basic equipment like personal protective gear and swabs. Given all that, Jha agrees that health care workers and the very ill should be getting tested most often.

But Jha and other experts say as soon as we can, we need to take the following measures:

Massively expand testing
...
Isolate the sick and trace their contacts
...
Gradually loosen shelter in place
...

...
"Things are definitely going to get worse before they get better," agrees Gurley. But she adds, "the sooner that we can get testing up and running, the better off we're going to be."

So if testing can scale up massively and we can get the initial surge under control, there is a potential path to getting things more back to normal. But here is the catch, the estimates are for needing on the order of 100,000 tests per day to do that. We don't have the lab capacity to do that right now. So we need more rapid tests that don't need to be processed by experts in a lab.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 02:57:41 PM
It's somewhat ironic that Trump is touting himself as a "wartime President," since any wartime leader would have a battle plan that deals with many operational fronts.  If I were king - er, I mean a wartime President, I would build my effort along the following lines:

First, the very basic elements.  We are under attack, so...

* First, protect people from harm.  The lockdowns help, but they are being developed and implemented differently in each state, while the enemy is the same everywhere.  So, construct a tiered safety system that all states are required to follow with more stringent rules in higher risk areas and less strict guidelines where the disease is less prevalent and less likely to proliferate.  Federal economic assistance would be provided as necessary.

* Plan a month or more ahead for anticipated medical capacity based on multiple scientific models.  That means requiring Governors where needed to increase hospital facilities and require manufacturers to ramp up production of necessary equipment and materials.  All of these things would be paid for by the federal government.

* Identify lifeline supply chains and end-point delivery systems.  The most important of these are food stores and the supply chain that provides them with their stock all the way back to the initial producers through the packaging and delivery industries. Identify other essential services/industries and do the same for them. Industry can pay for these things as they are part of their normal business activities.

Next,

* Enlist researchers, pharmaceutical companies and bioscientists to investigate, recommend and test potential treatments to prevent the illness, mitigate its course and cure or resolve it in patients at all risk and infection levels. The federal government would pay for expedited development and testing of promising approaches.

* Analyze the path of the virus through society and determine which segments of the population can be allowed to resume some portion or all of their pre-virus routines. The first of these would be to re-open K-12 schools as soon as possible, wherever possible.  Since children are at very low risk of contracting COVID-19 and have the least severe symptoms, they should be allowed to congregate.  Use schools for that purpose and extend school hours so their parents can work wherever possible. 

* In most cases, parents of young students are also in low-risk age groups, so allow them to work from home or to return to their external work environments.  If testing is not available, make sure that vulnerable family members are sequestered from their younger relatives.  If testing is available, allow all age and risk groups to share spaces if they all test negative for the virus.

Rinse, repeat.  This is a progressive plan that allows healthy people to resume their lives and takes some stress off of the economic system and commercial activities.  Over time and after a long series of catastrophes, declare victory and get on with our lives.

What did I miss?  Where am I going wrong?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 24, 2020, 03:09:31 PM
...

* Analyze the path of the virus through society and determine which segments of the population can be allowed to resume some portion or all of their pre-virus routines. The first of these would be to re-open K-12 schools as soon as possible, wherever possible.  Since children are at very low risk of contracting COVID-19 and have the least severe symptoms, they should be allowed to congregate.  Use schools for that purpose and extend school hours so their parents can work wherever possible. 
...
What did I miss?  Where am I going wrong?

Children can still get the disease. It just happens to be mild in children. Which is problematic for the spread, because they are very likely to continue to interact with other children and their parents while infected. Also teachers aren't always young, healthy, and likely to have mild cases. Schools due to the density of people are actually one of the last things that should reopen.

Quote
Many (41.5%) had fever, and cough and throat redness were also common. Twenty-seven (15.8%) had no symptoms or signs of pneumonia on x-ray, while 12 (7.0%) had signs on x-ray but no symptoms, for an asymptomatic rate of 22.8%. "Determination of the transmission potential of these asymptomatic patients is important for guiding the development of measures to control the ongoing pandemic," the authors wrote.

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/03/childrens-covid-19-risks-unique-chinese-studies-find (http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/03/childrens-covid-19-risks-unique-chinese-studies-find)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 24, 2020, 03:28:20 PM
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/24/820797301/fact-check-trump-compares-coronavirus-to-the-flu-but-they-are-not-the-same?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=nprblogscoronavirusliveupdates (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/24/820797301/fact-check-trump-compares-coronavirus-to-the-flu-but-they-are-not-the-same?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=nprblogscoronavirusliveupdates)

Differences between flu and covid-19.

Quote
...
2. This strain of coronavirus appears to infect two to 2.5 people versus 1.3 with the flu, so coronavirus seems to be about twice as contagious as the flu;

3. Some 20% of coronavirus patients are in serious enough condition to go to the hospital, 10 times the number who wind up in the hospital because of the flu;

4. Hospital stays for the coronavirus are twice as as long as for the flu;

5. About 8% of people get the flu every year. Some estimates are 25% to 50%, possibly up to 80%, could get the coronavirus without drastic actions being taken by individuals, states and municipalities and the federal government;

6. The coronavirus could be 10 times deadlier than the flu — about 0.1% who get flu die. It's estimated that about 1% of those who have gotten coronavirus have died from it;
...

Lots of good information in that list as to why this is being taken so much more seriously than the flu.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 24, 2020, 03:54:33 PM
Quote
* Analyze the path of the virus through society and determine which segments of the population can be allowed to resume some portion or all of their pre-virus routines. The first of these would be to re-open K-12 schools as soon as possible, wherever possible.  Since children are at very low risk of contracting COVID-19 and have the least severe symptoms, they should be allowed to congregate.  Use schools for that purpose and extend school hours so their parents can work wherever possible. 

* In most cases, parents of young students are also in low-risk age groups, so allow them to work from home or to return to their external work environments.  If testing is not available, make sure that vulnerable family members are sequestered from their younger relatives.  If testing is available, allow all age and risk groups to share spaces if they all test negative for the virus.
I think you may be underestimating just what very low risk means, especially as it concerns hospitalizations.

Early numbers suggested a fairly homogeneous fatality rate of about 0.2% of those infected in the age group of 10 years to 40 years, where acute cases made up slightly more than twice the fatality rate.  So call that about a 0.5% rate of acute care for those infected in those aged 10-40years.

About 50% of the US population is less than 40 years old - call it 160,000,000 people.  If you assume a surge infection rate of just 5% at any given time, that would be about 8,000,000 infected people below the age of 40.  If 0.5% of them needed acute care, that would be 40,000 acute cases - much higher than the available surge critical care bed capacity.

And that is only if 5% are actively infected at the peak.  What if it is 7.5% or 10%?  That also ignores that allowing young people to spread the virus amongst themselves will lead to much greater spread amongst the older population because it is simply not reasonable that you will get 100% segregation of the populations.  And if it gets into those populations, the rate of hospitalizations will be much higher.

What you described is pretty close to the initial UK mitigation strategy that led to estimates of 250,000 UK deaths, just delayed slightly.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 24, 2020, 04:01:54 PM
The idea that those previously infected could be 'let loose' is an interesting idea... though probably not practical, as the available pool of labour would not be uniformly, or maybe effectively, distributed, across skill sets... you couldn't just open a manufacturing plant without the properly trained people, and enough of them.

Maybe people could volunteer to go on COVID-19 vacations, where they decide to actively have themselves infected, and be quarantined in a hospice with the best possible care until they recover or die.  Just get it over with.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 05:05:06 PM
To our (erstwhile) English fathers, what do you think of the English antibody initiative?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 24, 2020, 05:36:49 PM
Some tweaks/additions to your proposal:
1. Aggressive education of the populace - hygiene, proper uses of protective devices, social gatherings, responsibility, etc.
2. Maintain isolation of the general population for at least 3 times the length of the virus lifecycle (3 * 14 days) but preferably longer, especially if the public is on board.
3. Keep kids out of school for at least 2 months - but possibly longer.  Children in schools are the most effective transmitters of disease for a number of reasons.
4. Put in place distance learning opportunities, as well as other distance activities.
5. increase ICU capacity during that time.
6. Evaluate the status of the population at that point, as well as throughout the period.
7. If the analysis suggests that isolation can be relaxed, do so for adults first, for work purposes, with only a subset of industries.
8. Re-evaluate
9. Relax restrictions slowly on subsets of industry as ongoing analysis confirms that viral spread is within an acceptable range.
10. Maintain physical distance rules in all settings where at all practical.  Maintain limits on public gatherings.  This will need to be in place much longer than the harsher distancing and isolation strategies

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 24, 2020, 06:18:40 PM
Saving even one life is worth doing whatever it takes feels virtuous but is complete nonsense. There are many scenarios in which "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. They're just really difficult and unpleasant to wrestle with.

That's true, but has there been any study or analysis of how many deaths would happen?  How many would be acceptable to you?  Some estimates go as high as 2.5 million.  If you have older relatives, are you ok if they die to make room for other people to live?  Would you sacrifice yourself?  If so, why are you obeying any of the restrictions that are in place now (assuming that you are)?

"Hammer and the Dance" presented a scenario with a 75% infection rate in the US with a 4% mortality rate, the number that presented was about 4.1 Million deaths. While a 25% infection rate and 1% mortality brings it down to just over half-a-million dead.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 24, 2020, 06:22:54 PM
Are the 2.5 million worst-case guesses still valid? I was under the assumption that those scenarios were only valid if we ignored it and took no action, which clearly is not the case.

They're valid until either a successful vaccine is deployed, or they find a way to treat it successfully.

There is every possibility that we'll be right back where we started just weeks after the quarantine is lifted, even if it lasted into August. You're not putting this genie back in the bottle.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 24, 2020, 06:27:18 PM
"if we do nothing" is no longer valid, that was my point to the original guess no longer being valid if that was it's underlying assumption

The discussion was going around - cut our economic losses - reopen everything and go back to life "as normal." At that point the worst case is still the same worst case. That's the down side of shutting down everything as our primary tool - if you open back up too early it has no lasting effect. So the worst case is still valid for a Trump, get things back to normal in 2 weeks approach.

Under current conditions we will probably need 3-4 weeks of "shut down" to see the benefits. I think the most likely scenario is that the US surpasses both China and Italy in the total number of infections and end up with between 100k-200k infected. But that's just based off my own simple modeling and the hodgepodge reaction we're taking to it.

Not quite, the longer we remain shut down, the longer it will take for the contagion to flare up again. But you can expect it to flare up again, we can only hope it is identified quickly enough to prevent if from going global again.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 24, 2020, 06:30:07 PM
The concern as I understand it is that resuming 'normal' life will likely mean a increase in the loss of life and overwhelm health care system.
Questions
- are we putting off the inevitable?
- is any loss of life acceptable? If so is their a tipping point? (When it affects our family) Who decides what is acceptable?
- What does a overwhelmed health care system mean? Are we putting at risk our health care workers? where do we put the sick if we run out of beds?
- Is their a way to find a balance between economics and health?

An over-whelmed health care system also means "collateral damage" as the guy who just had a heart attack that would normally be survivable today becomes fatal because there are no resources available to treat him. Ditto for strokes, accidents with major injures, etc. It isn't just the Covid19 patients who would die.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 24, 2020, 06:34:57 PM
- What does a overwhelmed health care system mean? Are we putting at risk our health care workers? where do we put the sick if we run out of beds?
Dunno. I haven't seen any reasonable data or forecasts around actual numbers.

Closest thing I've seen to this only speaks to the viral side, and now for it's third appearance on this forum in 5 days:
Coronavirus: The Hammer and the Dance (http://"https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56")
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Wayward Son on March 25, 2020, 11:14:02 AM
Patrick did not say all seniors were willing to die. Patrick said he would be willing to take that risk. He said to be smart about it (do I need to unpack that for you, can you guys be that deep in the TDS fever?) and let the 70+ team make the call about their own health (their body, their choice, right?).

Except it isn't only him that he is risking.

Having the disease means he can spread it to others.  So unless he isolates himself from his friends and family, he will most likely give it to one of them.  And if he does isolate himself...well, that kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it? ;)

Remember, from the latest I've heard, you can be contagious without symptoms.  So if he isolate himself when he feels sick, it is too late.

Second, spreading the disease means more people will die.  Because social distancing is not preventing everyone from getting it.  It is preventing our medical infrastructure from being overwhelmed.  Right now, hospitals and first responders do not have enough protective equipment to insulate them from the virus.  Nurses are using used surgical masks because they don't have replacements.  There are a limited number of respirators for those who are acutely ill.  Hospital beds are limited.  And if nurses and doctors get the disease because of lack of protective gears, they will be even more limited.  All which adds up to higher casualty rates than need be.  And not just retirees.  They just have the highest rate of death.  Every age group has people dying it in.

What happens to the economy when workers die, or have permanent lung scarring from the disease, because they couldn't get proper treatment because of triage?  What happens to their lives, because Patrick decided he was willing to risk his life and infect them?

Patrick is an idiot.  He doesn't understand the implications of what he is advocating, and he is putting everyone at risk because of it. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 25, 2020, 12:27:46 PM
The page (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/) has a few graphs illustrating the daily progression of the virus in the USA.

Both number of cases and deaths are, indeed, increasing exponentially (see the logarithmic graph of the number of deaths if there is any doubt.)

Unless something completely under the radar happened between 1 and 2 weeks ago, the situation in the USA is about to get very bad, very quickly.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: oldbrian on March 25, 2020, 04:27:10 PM
Crunch from another thread:
Quote
China has established a pattern of lying and coverups around this virus. The others have not. Consequently, I trust these guys and their results far more than the Chinese government.

Someone is tracking cell phone usage in China, and she pointed out that 15 million cellphones have had no traffic for several weeks. I didn't read the entire article - it was copied on facebook.  I don't know how robust the cell service is, I don't know if there are cultural forces in play that would affect cell usage.
But I do know that the virus tracker I am looking at has not show a single new case in China for 10 days now.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 25, 2020, 04:48:15 PM
Patrick did not say all seniors were willing to die. Patrick said he would be willing to take that risk. He said to be smart about it (do I need to unpack that for you, can you guys be that deep in the TDS fever?) and let the 70+ team make the call about their own health (their body, their choice, right?).

Except it isn't only him that he is risking.

More importantly, he's not talking as just a celebrity or some guy spritzing how he feels in that moment. He's the 2nd highest ranking public official in the state.  Everything he says on public media will be interpreted with that recognition.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 26, 2020, 02:47:42 PM
Crunch from another thread:
Quote
China has established a pattern of lying and coverups around this virus. The others have not. Consequently, I trust these guys and their results far more than the Chinese government.

Someone is tracking cell phone usage in China, and she pointed out that 15 million cellphones have had no traffic for several weeks. I didn't read the entire article - it was copied on facebook.  I don't know how robust the cell service is, I don't know if there are cultural forces in play that would affect cell usage.
But I do know that the virus tracker I am looking at has not show a single new case in China for 10 days now.

Just saw my first instance of this referenced on Facebook, it links to a youtube video, so not sure how much I'd trust it. The video claims 21 million, and someone else replied to the posting saying the count it now at 81 million.

I agree with a couple theories suggested as to "contributing factors" in play.
1) A Lot of foreign nationals likely had phones that were specifically used in China, they've since left the country and no longer have need for the phone, so it's "gone silent"
2) An additional large subset of the phones are likely to be "burner phones" of some flavor,
2.a) possibly being paid for through help from previously mentioned foreigners who have since left. Without the intermediary to pay for the phone, it's gone dead.
2.b) Alternately, the travel restrictions China had put in place prevented them from traveling to make the needed payments on their "burner," for much the same result, the phone is now dead.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 26, 2020, 03:23:13 PM
It appears as though the author of one of the predominant models being used to inform a lot of COVID strategy and policy (Imperial College London) is walking back their doom stats.

He's now "“reasonably confident” the health service can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in two or three weeks. UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."

That same model was also suggesting 18 months of required social distancing and overall disruption. He's now saying that's impractical and they should have proper testing to mitigate/control within "2-3 weeks".

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/#ixzz6HpAEml86


Additionally, the University of Oxford released provisional findings of a different model that they say shows that up to half the UK population could already have been infected, which could greatly lower previous morbidity and mortality predictions.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/#ixzz6HpB8NCZw

I'm sure many will argue this is not the time to stop panicking. I'm simply advising my friends and family to be open to evolving models and the experts who forward them. Reminds me of something, but just can't put my finger on it....
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: msquared on March 26, 2020, 03:47:56 PM
I just wonder at what numbers will one side say "You know, we were wrong?"  The US is now at 1,000 deaths from what I have heard. Is it at 10,000?  30,000? If it stops at 2,000 can we say, yep it was over hyped?   Over what time frame is the total supposed to be accruing?  I mean originally the argument was that flu killed tens of thousands a year, so what was a few hundred? But that ignored that the flu amount was for a whole year and this Covid19 was just getting started?

If the number of deaths stays low (less than 10,000) can we say the social distancing worked?  Or will it be claimed that it was never that bad.  I think back to the Y2K issue. Companies spent billions fixing the problem and it mainly was not an issue.  Is that because it was not a real issue or that companies spent billions to make sure it was not an issue (the cure worked).

msquared
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 26, 2020, 04:00:07 PM
...
Additionally, the University of Oxford released provisional findings of a different model that they say shows that up to half the UK population could already have been infected, which could greatly lower previous morbidity and mortality predictions.
...

One researcher from Oxford released a pre-print of a paper. LetterRip already pointed out many of the flaws of that paper. Rule 1 of mathematical modeling, does my model fit the current data - answer here is no. The model should then be reexamined and assumptions made reevaluated. When I first saw reference to this I looked to see if the bbc was picking it up and that hadn't yet. Responsible news sources wouldn't report on this scientific paper pre-print. I very much expect that paper doesn't pass peer review.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 26, 2020, 04:26:54 PM
Ah, AOC...

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1242894936753700879?s=20

Quote
Just a reminder that there is absolutely no good reason why Senate Republicans are tying a historic corporate giveaway to getting relief money in the hands of families.

They could just authorize sending checks to families today, right now, & deal with the rest. But they refuse.

They're quibbling over $500 Billion of the $2 Trillion package, that would be the portion that goes to "corporate welfare."

And last I checked, the TARP bill, which Obama spent most of, was a lot bigger than 500 Billion.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 26, 2020, 04:40:08 PM
He's now "“reasonably confident” the health service can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in two or three weeks. UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower."

He isn't walking it back - he is saying that the UK has taken the appropriate actions (finally) that it might limit the damage - the UK is on complete lock down - one of the most extreme in the western world for at least two weeks.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/boris-johnson-orders-uk-lockdown-to-be-enforced-by-police

Quote
That same model was also suggesting 18 months of required social distancing and overall disruption. He's now saying that's impractical and they should have proper testing to mitigate/control within "2-3 weeks".

The model never required 18 months of strong social distancing - it was a quite simple model that couldn't make any sort of such implications.

Quote
Additionally, the University of Oxford released provisional findings of a different model that they say shows that up to half the UK population could already have been infected, which could greatly lower previous morbidity and mortality predictions.

No it doesn't "show" any such thing.  The paper describes different combinations of Ro (infective rate) and p (hospitalization rate) with different lead times can give similar growth curves within the error bars of what is being tested.  Assuming a larger than measured Ro (2.75 - most reliable estimates are 2) and a drastically smaller than measured p (.001 - current actual measurments are .15) would give 40% of the population has been infected since the outbreak.  However, that Ro and p are completely in conflict with measurements, geographic distribution, and phylogenetics - which point towards a .3% or so infection rate.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 26, 2020, 05:06:00 PM
.3% of total UK population infected or previously infected - not 'infection rate' sorry for the sloppy typing.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 26, 2020, 08:30:29 PM
LR, I don't have anything resembling a clinical background or experience interpreting epidemiologic statistics. That's why I'm trying to get as much info from as many sources as possible and being skeptical in general.

How would you interpret Fauci's paper released today in the New England Journal of Medicine? In which he states:

"This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.2"

How does his statement square with the more dire predictions? Is Fauci playing down the meaning of "overall clinical consequences"?  I'm stuck on that.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 26, 2020, 08:37:13 PM
I should add, I'm seeing a lot of people highly invested in being "right", which is sickening with such high stakes. Obviously we all want to think we're rationally interpreting incredibly fluid events correctly, but bias is a bitch and I'm always on hyper-alert for that whenever humans are inputting variables into models (of which, while not an expert, I have experience using certain probabilistic models like Bayesian and b-tree).

It also feels as if we're massively lacking uniformity as to how deaths are attributable to the virus in various countries like Italy and Spain and making assumptions despite those gaps.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 26, 2020, 08:49:11 PM
I should add, I'm seeing a lot of people highly invested in being "right", which is sickening with such high stakes. Obviously we all want to think we're rationally interpreting incredibly fluid events correctly, but bias is a bitch and I'm always on hyper-alert for that whenever humans are inputting variables into models (of which, while not an expert, I have experience using certain probabilistic models like Bayesian and b-tree).

Models can be incredibly predictive but also run exactly what they're fed.

It also feels as if we're massively lacking uniformity as to how deaths are attributable to the virus in various countries like Italy and Spain and making assumptions despite those gaps.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 26, 2020, 09:29:07 PM
...Models can be incredibly predictive but also run exactly what they're fed.

Yes. Statistics is like a bikini. What they show is interesting, but what they conceal is absolutely vital.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 26, 2020, 09:44:12 PM
LR, I don't have anything resembling a clinical background or experience interpreting epidemiologic statistics. That's why I'm trying to get as much info from as many sources as possible and being skeptical in general.

How would you interpret Fauci's paper released today in the New England Journal of Medicine? In which he states:

"This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.2"

How does his statement square with the more dire predictions? Is Fauci playing down the meaning of "overall clinical consequences"?  I'm stuck on that.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387

It is a bit misleading because he doesn't include the numbers for the 1957 and 1968 Influenzas.  Pandemic Influenza of 1957 had 1-4 million global deaths (global population 3 billion then; 7.8 billion now would give 2.6-10.4 million global deaths today if we had similar rural percentage) and a case fatality rate of .7%.  Pandemic Influenza of 1968 had 1-4 million global deaths (3.5 billion population; so equivalent today 2.2-8.8 million) and a case fatality rate of .5%.  Both of those time periods had drastically less international travel and drastically smaller cities and larger rural populations, and of course smaller world population.  Using case fataility rates, todays population, and a 50% penetration (some mitigation efforts; and lucky small towns that don't get infected) those would be 27.3 million for 1957 flu if it happened today; and 19.5 million for 1968 flu.

Covid-19 is expected to have an ultimate case fatality rate in the 1-4% (.5% with extreme measures) range depending on whether the hospitals get overloaded and how badly, again a 50% penetration seems likely.  So including the seasonal influenza in there is a bit misleading, because Covid-19 is far worse than seasonal influenza, but reasonable case scenario of Covid-19 with strong mitigation efforts is reasonably close to what 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics would be if they happended today with basic mitigation efforts.  However, they really don't compare if hospitals get overloaded with Covid-19.

Of course the problem is that Covid-19 has asymptomatic carriers.  So you have to use much stronger mitigation efforts.  'Avoid people that look sick, and use PPE when near them' works fine for influenza, but is much less effective for Covid-19.  Hand washing and don't touch your face is always effective (80% of respiratory virus infections are from self face touching, not others sneezing).

Of course really extreme global measures like purportedly occurred in China could potentially extinguish Covid-19 with a far lower number of fatalities.  We might end up with some countries it infects much of the population and then they develop herd immunity; and other countries take extreme measures and manage to prevent significant infections until a vaccine is found.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 27, 2020, 02:25:18 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/italian-scientists-investigate-possible-earlier-151108674.html

"Italian researchers are looking at whether a higher than usual number of cases of severe pneumonia and flu in Lombardy in the last quarter of 2019 may be a signal that the new coronavirus might have spread beyond China earlier than previously thought...

"He added that, given what we know about how infectious the virus is, and the ratio of patients showing no symptoms compared with those that get sick, "it is inconceivable that we would not have had a pretty major epidemic in Europe much earlier if these cases had in fact been COVID-19".

Insert Princess Bride reference here.

As the saying goes, you don't always get what you expect, but you always get what you inspect. It should be easy enough to find out for sure one way or the other with old stored samples or exhumation.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 27, 2020, 04:28:49 AM
That theory has a problem, phylogenetics already makes a very strong and compelling case that it is NOT that old.

https://twitter.com/nextstrain

https://nextstrain.org/ncov

You don't get groupings like they're tracking if its ancestor is appearing in China in January/February before appearing in Europe in December(or earlier). The odds of it being "a different strain" which happened to independently mutate into nearly the exact same form are astronomical.

But I guess that's where people can break out their tinfoil hats and start saying that proves this outbreak is intentional and some secret government agency or secret society is behind its release.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 27, 2020, 04:33:56 AM
Well the good thing about that theory is it's testable. It either is or it isn't true and the tests will tell one way or the other in short order. If they exhume a body of someone who died of the flu a couple of months ago and the new test determines they died of corona then that is that. I don't have any opinion on it one way or the other. I just want the testing done and let's see what we see.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 27, 2020, 05:49:01 AM
The Nextstrain site data is fascinating.  It reminds me that genetic mutations aren't truly random, but fall into patterns with different probabilities and have different survival prospects.  It's not at all impossible that the same mutation would occur independently in different locations.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: msquared on March 27, 2020, 08:52:46 AM
I seen no one has taken me up on my question.  Kassandra, Crunch, WmLambert, theDrake et al.  What numbers will make you change your minds?

Personally I hope the number of deaths stay under 10,000.  But I fear it is going to be much higher.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 27, 2020, 09:32:50 AM
I seen no one has taken me up on my question.  Kassandra, Crunch, WmLambert, theDrake et al.  What numbers will make you change your minds?

Personally I hope the number of deaths stay under 10,000.  But I fear it is going to be much higher.

Make me change my mind? Nothing. I believe it is serious, and worth the efforts currently in place and the ones to come. Even if cases flatten a week from now, I'll believe it was because the extraordinary measures worked. I also think deaths is the wrong measure. I think we should be looking at serious and critical cases (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/#serious-critical). This better reflects the ICU beds and other medical capacity.

Meanwhile, the people who said it was no big deal will likely take a quick stop as proof they were right all along, and a spike as proof that the measures were ineffective anyway so we might as well not have tanked the economy.

In other words, the vast majority of people will continue to believe they were right all along.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 27, 2020, 09:39:03 AM
...
In other words, the vast majority of people will continue to believe they were right all along.

Appropriate conclusion to any post in the segregated media and social media age.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 27, 2020, 09:43:12 AM
I seen no one has taken me up on my question.  Kassandra, Crunch, WmLambert, theDrake et al.  What numbers will make you change your minds?

Personally I hope the number of deaths stay under 10,000.  But I fear it is going to be much higher.

Make me change my mind? Nothing. I believe it is serious, and worth the efforts currently in place and the ones to come. Even if cases flatten a week from now, I'll believe it was because the extraordinary measures worked. I also think deaths is the wrong measure. I think we should be looking at serious and critical cases (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/#serious-critical). This better reflects the ICU beds and other medical capacity.

Also serious viral infections can sometimes have other long term consequences. There haven't been any reports of any so far but China is the only place with enough people recovered to see any patterns and they can be an information black box when they want to be.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 27, 2020, 09:50:20 AM
If we find out that a much higher percentage of the population was infected without any serious issue, and this is already the 'peak' of critical cases, then yeah, that would be cause to reevaluate.  But that doesn't correspond with reality.

New York hospitals are in the throes of dealing with the pandemic right now, and what they are seeing is far worse than any seasonal flu in recent history - and that is even with the drastic suppression actions already taken by the city.

As the Drake mentioned - half of the USA is self isolating already, and this should have a medium term effect on the number of critical cases.  As well, the final numbers will be so dependent on not just the virus itself but on the effectiveness of the suppression efforts that assessing one without reference to the other will be meaningless, and most people (who generally are prone to selection bias) will ignore one or the other as is their wont.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 27, 2020, 09:57:23 AM
I just wonder at what numbers will one side say "You know, we were wrong?"  The US is now at 1,000 deaths from what I have heard. Is it at 10,000?  30,000? If it stops at 2,000 can we say, yep it was over hyped?   Over what time frame is the total supposed to be accruing?  I mean originally the argument was that flu killed tens of thousands a year, so what was a few hundred? But that ignored that the flu amount was for a whole year and this Covid19 was just getting started?

If the number of deaths stays low (less than 10,000) can we say the social distancing worked?  Or will it be claimed that it was never that bad.  I think back to the Y2K issue. Companies spent billions fixing the problem and it mainly was not an issue.  Is that because it was not a real issue or that companies spent billions to make sure it was not an issue (the cure worked).

msquared

I don't think the virus will spare the country (or the world), so speculating a number low enough to change my mind about what to do about it doesn't seem answerable.  In some senses, we're overreacting with too draconian measures, but without adequate foreknowledge that we could only get through blanket testing, we don't know what we don't know and have to assume the worst. 

My brother scoffed when I pointed out to him that people are scared and panicking.  He said that couldn't be true because that is a prey response and we are predators.  I pointed out to him that in this situation the virus is the predator and we are the prey.  Not everyone believes that, apparently.

If I have to give a number that will make any sort of difference, it would be a near complete 100% respectful and semi-fearful response from everyone.  That would cause us collectively to have a better chance of minimizing the death and economic destruction from the disease.  But that won't happen, either.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 27, 2020, 11:26:40 AM
8200 deaths in Italy as of yesterday... that is roughly equivalent to 50,000 deaths in the US (Italy has roughly 1/6 the population of the USA) and that is with the whole country under lockdown.

The daily death rate seems to have stabilized at between 700 and 750 per day, and newly reported cases now seem to be dropping - so the number of cases continues to rise, but more slowly today than a couple of days ago.

Clearly, there is no way of telling exactly how many more people in Italy will die in the current wave of the virus, but there are at minimum several more thousand deaths baked into the current pool of infected people.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 27, 2020, 11:40:19 AM
8200 deaths in Italy as of yesterday... that is roughly equivalent to 50,000 deaths in the US (Italy has roughly 1/6 the population of the USA) and that is with the whole country under lockdown.

Projecting fatality numbers by comparing bulk population numbers between Italy and the US would do a good job of keeping panic levels up, but a horrible job of predicting real outcomes.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 27, 2020, 11:59:42 AM
...What numbers will make you change your minds?

There is nothing in my mind to change. What are you attempting to say? ...That I and others want deaths to occur at any numbers and ignore them so that Trump doesn't get blamed. That's a no-brainer. There is no such number because the anti-Trumpers will never stop pretending everything is his fault. It doesn't matter what facts or metrics show - they will never stop braying their hatred. It is sad, because Trump has done more for the country than any other president ever, yet they will never own up to it. What he's done to help the country in the light of the Wuhan flu is phenomenal, yet anything that happens is just an excuse for more blame.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 27, 2020, 12:12:05 PM
8200 deaths in Italy as of yesterday... that is roughly equivalent to 50,000 deaths in the US (Italy has roughly 1/6 the population of the USA) and that is with the whole country under lockdown.

Projecting fatality numbers by comparing bulk population numbers between Italy and the US would do a good job of keeping panic levels up, but a horrible job of predicting real outcomes.

Which is another good reason for Trump and his devoted minions to stop claiming that we do have it under control.  We simply don't have enough information to give anything beyond broad ranges and timeline estimates.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: msquared on March 27, 2020, 12:14:58 PM
wmLambert, you sure read a lot into a simple question.  What I was trying to say is that I am disappointed that everyone has already made up their mind and that no amount of evidence would change any one on either side.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 27, 2020, 12:19:46 PM
I seen no one has taken me up on my question.  Kassandra, Crunch, WmLambert, theDrake et al.  What numbers will make you change your minds?

Personally I hope the number of deaths stay under 10,000.  But I fear it is going to be much higher.

Via The Atlantic ...

In 1937, during the Great Depression, at least 40,000 Americans took their own lives that year and again in 1938. That two-year span, suicide rates spiked to its highest recorded level ever: more than 150 per 1 million annually. You want to do it again?

There's a brutal calculus at work here. We may keep it under 10,000 COIVD related deaths this year only to see more than that ultimately succumb to the despair of a shattered economy and take their own lives. Not to mention all the livelihoods that are being lost now whose impact won't be fully measured for years.

Quote
In the modern era, for every 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate, there has typically been an increase of about 1 percent in the number of suicides, according to Steve Stack, a professor at Wayne State University.

What numbers will make you change your mind?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 27, 2020, 12:22:51 PM
wmLambert, you sure read a lot into a simple question.  What I was trying to say is that I am disappointed that everyone has already made up their mind and that no amount of evidence would change any one on either side.

The question wasn't really simple.  We've already seen enough deaths in the US and anticipate enough more (by rational and statistical means) that this is already bad and will only get much worse.  A better question might be, where do you draw the line on how many people die and how severely will the economy will be impacted such that the country will or won't be able to return to "normal"?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 27, 2020, 12:24:27 PM
wmLambert, you sure read a lot into a simple question.  What I was trying to say is that I am disappointed that everyone has already made up their mind and that no amount of evidence would change any one on either side.

Bur no one has "made up their minds" about anything. You are projecting your own failure of flexibility. Regardless of any metrics, Trump has responded on point as the best medical minds have advised. No matter what he does, it just isn't good enough. ...And you see that as the fault of him and anyone who behaves normally and accepts that he is doing the best for the country.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 27, 2020, 12:26:34 PM
8200 deaths in Italy as of yesterday... that is roughly equivalent to 50,000 deaths in the US (Italy has roughly 1/6 the population of the USA) and that is with the whole country under lockdown.

Projecting fatality numbers by comparing bulk population numbers between Italy and the US would do a good job of keeping panic levels up, but a horrible job of predicting real outcomes.

Which is another good reason for Trump and his devoted minions to stop claiming that we do have it under control.  We simply don't have enough information to give anything beyond broad ranges and timeline estimates.

You're trapped in a vortex.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 27, 2020, 12:28:36 PM
The Nextstrain site data is fascinating.  It reminds me that genetic mutations aren't truly random, but fall into patterns with different probabilities and have different survival prospects.  It's not at all impossible that the same mutation would occur independently in different locations.

Yes and no.

If you're looking at a specific sequence, yes.

If you're looking at the bigger picture no. That's like finding two people with matching sets of fingerprints. They're going to develop other, different mutations on other positions on other markers during that same intervening time period, and it is through those differences that you can start to differentiate "family lines" for specific strains.

It's how genetic genealogy works(and one of those groups is where I encountered that data), specifically in regards to mitochondrialDNA and Y-DNA on the 23rd chromosome.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 27, 2020, 12:41:52 PM
Also serious viral infections can sometimes have other long term consequences. There haven't been any reports of any so far but China is the only place with enough people recovered to see any patterns and they can be an information black box when they want to be.

There are reports of decreased lung function and possible scarring of the lungs, but still a but early to tell. Some of that may also coincide with pre-existing (undiagnosed) conditions or genetic predispositions.

The thing I'm finding interesting as well are the news stories about specific family groups getting particularly hammered with unusually high mortality rates. At least the ones where it is just the biological relatives who died, not their spouses/in-laws, as that points to either a genetic factor or a years/decades-ago environmental factor. While the ones where the in-laws/spouses were dying too points to a more recent environmental factor possibly being in play. Or they simply had really, really bad luck.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 27, 2020, 12:47:38 PM
My brother scoffed when I pointed out to him that people are scared and panicking.  He said that couldn't be true because that is a prey response and we are predators.  I pointed out to him that in this situation the virus is the predator and we are the prey.  Not everyone believes that, apparently.

Yes, humans are predators, but we weren't always the apex predator as that only came about when we developed tools to make it happen. Take away our tools, and we become quickly become prey for a number of wild animals. Just because something is a predator doesn't make it not-prey to other predators.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 27, 2020, 12:52:12 PM
There's a brutal calculus at work here. We may keep it under 10,000 COIVD related deaths this year only to see more than that ultimately succumb to the despair of a shattered economy and take their own lives. Not to mention all the livelihoods that are being lost now whose impact won't be fully measured for years.

Quote
In the modern era, for every 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate, there has typically been an increase of about 1 percent in the number of suicides, according to Steve Stack, a professor at Wayne State University.

What numbers will make you change your mind?

Which isn't to mention that as economic conditions worsen, the rates for violent crime and domestic violence also tend to go up. So it isn't just the suicide rate that will go up, but the murder rate as well.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 27, 2020, 12:53:09 PM
The thing I'm finding interesting as well are the news stories about specific family groups getting particularly hammered with unusually high mortality rates.

Not gonna lie, as I read this sentence I was interpreting "hammered" completely differently and telling myself I should probably lay off the sauce a bit during the week.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 27, 2020, 01:43:32 PM
The Nextstrain site data is fascinating.  It reminds me that genetic mutations aren't truly random, but fall into patterns with different probabilities and have different survival prospects.  It's not at all impossible that the same mutation would occur independently in different locations.

Yes and no.

If you're looking at a specific sequence, yes.

If you're looking at the bigger picture no. That's like finding two people with matching sets of fingerprints. They're going to develop other, different mutations on other positions on other markers during that same intervening time period, and it is through those differences that you can start to differentiate "family lines" for specific strains.

It's how genetic genealogy works (and one of those groups is where I encountered that data), specifically in regards to mitochondrialDNA and Y-DNA on the 23rd chromosome.

I'm impressed. You sound like David Weber's Allison Harrington. very good explanation.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Wayward Son on March 27, 2020, 04:14:18 PM
Quote
In 1937, during the Great Depression, at least 40,000 Americans took their own lives that year and again in 1938. That two-year span, suicide rates spiked to its highest recorded level ever: more than 150 per 1 million annually. You want to do it again?

There's a brutal calculus at work here. We may keep it under 10,000 COIVD related deaths this year only to see more than that ultimately succumb to the despair of a shattered economy and take their own lives. Not to mention all the livelihoods that are being lost now whose impact won't be fully measured for years.

That is a concern, but consider this: left unchecked, do suicide rates rise exponentially? ;)

The potential deaths from Covid-19 are greater than despair-related suicides.

And how many suicides would be expected from having a large number of loved-ones die?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 27, 2020, 04:36:23 PM
Quote
In 1937, during the Great Depression, at least 40,000 Americans took their own lives that year and again in 1938. That two-year span, suicide rates spiked to its highest recorded level ever: more than 150 per 1 million annually. You want to do it again?

There's a brutal calculus at work here. We may keep it under 10,000 COIVD related deaths this year only to see more than that ultimately succumb to the despair of a shattered economy and take their own lives. Not to mention all the livelihoods that are being lost now whose impact won't be fully measured for years.

That is a concern, but consider this: left unchecked, do suicide rates rise exponentially? ;)

The potential deaths from Covid-19 are greater than despair-related suicides.

And how many suicides would be expected from having a large number of loved-ones die?

Back to POTENTIAL!  :o

If it wasn't for fear-mongering, I don't know what you'd post.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 27, 2020, 04:45:38 PM
So you're saying casualty estimations are invalid? Potential casualties are a mainstay of military operations, are they fear mongering too?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 27, 2020, 04:52:16 PM
If you think about it, the over-cautious, more panic-oriented reaction is a bit of a no-lose position.

If deaths end up at the high end of the pessimistic range, it's I told you so. If deaths end up being significantly lower (my current leaning) they can say it's only because so much caution and radical steps were taken.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 27, 2020, 05:59:23 PM
If you think about it, the over-cautious, more panic-oriented reaction is a bit of a no-lose position.

If deaths end up at the high end of the pessimistic range, it's I told you so. If deaths end up being significantly lower (my current leaning) they can say it's only because so much caution and radical steps were taken.

If you want to be visual about this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/

Check out the simulation graphics they provide.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 27, 2020, 06:20:22 PM
And now I'm reading Washington Post articles since I'm over there.

Media bias at its finest. Trump speaks about how he liked the idea of churches being filled on Easter Sunday.

enter the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/small-town-battled-coronavirus-on-its-own-as-outbreak-spread-in-a-red-state/2020/03/27/55c727f6-6dde-11ea-a3ec-70d7479d83f0_story.html
Quote
Stitt's turnaround demonstrates the quandary that many loyalists to President Trump and red-state governors will face in the days ahead as the coronavirus spreads through the United States — the sobering messages from health experts on the ground pose a stark contrast to the president's vow to reopen the country and fill all the churches by Easter Sunday.

He said no such thing. Washington Post needs to award itself a Pinocchio for that.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 27, 2020, 06:27:13 PM
Did Trump not say he wants to see “packed churches all over our country” on Easter Sunday?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 27, 2020, 06:32:28 PM
Did Trump not say he wants to see “packed churches all over our country” on Easter Sunday?

Your interpretation of his statement does not have context.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-10/

Quote
I said earlier today that I hope we can do this by Easter.  I think that would be a great thing for our country, and we’re all working very hard to make that a reality.  We’ll be meeting with a lot of people to see if it can be done.  Easter is a very special day for many reasons.  For me, for a lot of — a lot of our friends, that’s a very special day.  And what a great timeline this would be.  Easter, as our timeline — what a great timeline that would be.

My first priority is always the health and safety of the American people, and we want everyone to understand that we are continuing to evaluate the data.  We’re working with the task force and making decisions based on what is best for the interests of our fantastic country.


Quote
But our decision will be based on hard facts and data as to the opening.  I’m also hopeful to have Americans working again by that Easter — that beautiful Easter day.  But rest assured, every decision we make is grounded solely on the health, safety, and wellbeing of our citizens.

Quote
Q    Mr. President, you just reiterated that you hope to have the country reopened by Easter and you said earlier you would like to see churches packed on that day.  My question is — you have two doctors onstage with you — have either of them told you that’s a realistic timeline?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think we’re looking at a timeline.  We’re discussing it.  We had a very good meeting today.  You know, if you add it all up, that’s probably nine days plus another two and a half weeks.  It’s a period of time that’s longer than the original two weeks.

So we’re going to look at it.  We’ll only do it if it’s good.  And maybe we do sections of the country; we do large sections of the country.  That could be, too.  But, no, we’re very much in Tony and with Deborah on everything we’re doing.

Q    Who suggested Easter?  Who suggested that day?

THE PRESIDENT:  I just thought it was a beautiful time.  It would be a beautiful time, a beautiful timeline.  It’s a great day.

Q    So that wasn’t based on any of the data?

THE PRESIDENT:  It was — it was based on a certain level of weeks from the time we started.  And it happened to arrive — actually, we were thinking in terms of sooner.  I’d love to see if come even sooner.  But I just think it would be a beautiful timeline.



This matches my recollection of his remarks. I don't see a "vow" to have it wrapped up by Easter. I see him expressing a hope that it could be accomplished by Easter, but that they're monitoring the situation and will respond accordingly.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 27, 2020, 11:54:34 PM
Quote
Projecting fatality numbers by comparing bulk population
Since I wasn't projecting anything your post completely misses the boat.  I was trying to provide an illustration of the scope of the problem in Italy in a way that would resonate with many people posting here.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 28, 2020, 12:42:20 AM
My mistake, I thought when you talked about deaths in Italy and then said it was  “roughly equivalent” to 50K deaths in the US you may have been suggesting a comparison of the problem instead of illustrating the, um, scope of the problem. In Italy.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 28, 2020, 04:42:24 AM
Quote
This matches my recollection of his remarks. I don't see a "vow" to have it wrapped up by Easter. I see him expressing a hope that it could be accomplished by Easter, but that they're monitoring the situation and will respond accordingly.

And what I see was an initially absurd statement that required walking back repeatedly to erase the impression he gave from people's minds.  At this point nobody expects him to roll the shutdown back (which he can't do anyway) by Easter.  He appears to be heading in the direction of selectively asking states to ease the restrictions they imposed on a county-by-county basis.  FWIW, I have always thought that something like that was wiser than a massive all-inclusive shutdown.  I posted earlier this week an initial proposal for how I think the process could be approached.  Now I see Cuomo agreeing that the total shutdown in New York was a mistake.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 28, 2020, 05:43:31 AM
The Nextstrain site data is fascinating.  It reminds me that genetic mutations aren't truly random, but fall into patterns with different probabilities and have different survival prospects.  It's not at all impossible that the same mutation would occur independently in different locations.

Yes and no.

If you're looking at a specific sequence, yes.

If you're looking at the bigger picture no. That's like finding two people with matching sets of fingerprints. They're going to develop other, different mutations on other positions on other markers during that same intervening time period, and it is through those differences that you can start to differentiate "family lines" for specific strains.

It's how genetic genealogy works(and one of those groups is where I encountered that data), specifically in regards to mitochondrialDNA and Y-DNA on the 23rd chromosome.

I only mentioned it as a marker, not necessarily (could be) a mutation that changes virality or other disease factors.  We can potentially use it to see how the virus progressed through populations.  That's valuable information for epidemiological study purposes.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2020, 08:37:51 AM
Quote
Today, Prof. Didier Raoult and his team published results of their new study. The study was supported by the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) Méditerranée Infection. Unlike the previous small study trial, the new observation study has a larger sample size of 80 COVID-19 patients. The objective of the study was to find an effective treatment to cure COVID-19 patients and to decrease the virus carriage duration.

In 80 in-patients receiving a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, the team found a clinical improvement in all but one 86 year-old patient who died, and one 74-year old patient still in intensive care unit. The team also found that, by administering hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, they were able to observe an improvement in all cases, except in one patient who arrived with an advanced form, who was over the age of 86, and in whom the evolution was irreversible, according to a new paper published today in IHU Méditerranée Infection.


Quote
“In conclusion, we confirm the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine associated with azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 and its potential effectiveness in the early impairment of contagiousness. Given the urgent therapeutic need to manage this disease with effective and safe drugs and given the negligible cost of both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, we believe that other teams should urgently evaluate this therapeutic strategy both to avoid the spread of the disease and to treat patients before severe irreversible respiratory complications take hold,” the team concluded.

Good new for most people, bad new for some.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 28, 2020, 09:04:08 AM
Quote
The daily death rate [in Italy] seems to have stabilized at between 700 and 750 per day, and newly reported cases now seem to be dropping - so the number of cases continues to rise, but more slowly today than a couple of days ago.
I spoke too soon - it looks like 50 fatalities went unreported from Thursday, and yesterday's death toll in Italy spiked to 919, not including those 50 deaths attributed to Thursday, the biggest daily increase to-date.

Italy's total death toll now stands at 9134 and the rate of increase is not yet slowing.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 28, 2020, 09:04:53 AM
Quote
Good new for most people, bad new for some.
For whom would this be bad news?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2020, 09:28:02 AM
Quote
Good new for most people, bad new for some.
For whom would this be bad news?

Asks the guy that tried to make out Trump told people to consume fish tank cleaner.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 28, 2020, 09:53:01 AM
And who did that?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 28, 2020, 10:06:54 AM
Quote
Quote
In conclusion, we confirm the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine associated with azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 and its potential effectiveness in the early impairment of contagiousness. Given the urgent therapeutic need to manage this disease with effective and safe drugs and given the negligible cost of both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, we believe that other teams should urgently evaluate this therapeutic strategy both to avoid the spread of the disease and to treat patients before severe irreversible respiratory complications take hold,” the team concluded.

Good new for most people, bad new for some.

Good to hear that there is a positive result from a more extended clinical trial, bad news only for a tiny mentally unstable fringe who want to usher in the apocalypse, I suppose.  I remember when Michelle Bachmann, a Presidential candidate at one point, celebrated Obama's election because it meant the end times were near.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 28, 2020, 11:07:48 AM
Abbott has an FDA approved test that will provide a positive result in 5 minutes and a negative in 13 minutes. Uses a small footprint (toaster-size) hardware platform. Will allow 50K tests per day starting next week. Estimates 5 million tests will be performed with it in April.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/27/a-new-fda-authorized-covid-19-test-doesnt-need-a-lab-and-can-produce-results-in-just-5-minutes/
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 28, 2020, 12:19:39 PM
Here is the paper,

https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/COVID-IHU-2-1.pdf

Cohort is 80 people, observational study, median age 52, age range 18-88, all had at least one chronic disease that was a risk factor (diabetes, hypertension, chornic respiratory disease, etc.), and had a positive Covid-19 test on admittal.

Clinical course seems pretty similar to those without this treatment from what I can tell?

Quote
The majority (65/80, 81.3%) of patients had favourable outcome and were discharged from our unit at the time of writing with low NEWS scores (61/65, 93.8%). Only 15% required oxygen therapy. Three patients were transferred to the ICU, of whom two improved and were then returned to the ID ward. One 74 year-old patient was still in ICU at the time of writing. Finally, one 86 year-old patient who was not transferred to the ICU, died in the ID ward (Supplementary Table 1).

So 15% oxygen therapy (typical is 15%), 4% ICU (typical 5%).  1% death (1 death) (typical .5-1% - 1 death, also one was still in ICU and at risk at the time of writing).  They are essentially almost exactly in line with typical results.

They are claiming a lower viral load and faster discharge - but because it isn't controlled, it isn't clear that is the case - though it seems plausible. 

They are starting treatment median, 4.9 days after symptom onset, and they remain contaigious till up to day 12,

Quote
A rapid fall of nasopharyngeal viral load tested by qPCR was noted, with 83% negative at Day7, and 93% at Day8. The number of patients presumably contagious (with a PCR Ct value <34) steadily decreased overtime and reached zero on Day12 (Figure 1).  A marked decrease was observed after six days of treatment. After ten days, two patients only were still presumably contagious with Ct values of 32 and 29 respectively.

They seem to compare with studies that are non-comparable and misunderstand the literature.  Their claim on viral load - 5 days symptoms before hospital, 6-12 days of treatment to clear.  If we use 5-14 days before presenting symptoms.  That is 16-31 days of viral load - which is the finding in the literature for untreated individuals.

The 'ward stay' statistic isn't really meaningful, since discharge conditions are such that they are sending people home who are still contagious.

I could be wrong, but I think they are basically getting similar results to typically treated individuals and simply misunderstood the implications of the literature (ie this study was measuring viral load from time of admittal, the research literature was measuring viral load from time of exposure).  Hopefully case controlled studies will show that they really are showing improved outcome and improved clinical course.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 28, 2020, 12:26:23 PM
The cohort they compared with in their paper was,

Quote
In a cohort of 191 Chinese inpatients, of whom 95% received antibiotics and 21% received an association of lopinavir and ritonavir, the median duration of fever was 12 days and that of cough 19 days in survivors, with a 28% case-fatality rate (18).

However, case fatality rate for a sample of CoVID-19 positive individuals is .5-1% unless there is hospital overload.  So that Chinese cohort is composed of extremely ill individials, and in no way comparable to the cohort in the Italian study.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 28, 2020, 12:28:15 PM
I hope this treatment turns out to be an improvement on the general population outcomes, but you point out that it's still too early to be sure.  Thanks for the analysis.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 28, 2020, 06:46:05 PM
Finally. This is the way to go. And it's a very good start at understanding what all we're dealing with here.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/why-coronavirus-antibody-testing-one-colorado-town-could-204200745.html

"United Biomedical is now working with San Miguel County, which includes the famous Rocky Mountain ski destination, to test all 8,000 residents for COVID-19 antibodies -- making it the first community in the country to do widespread antibody testing."

This needs to be done for everyone in the country who is willing, and the sooner the better. Not only can it help get things back closer to normal if it turns out those who've been exposed have some immunity but if it's done very quickly it can tell us the time frame of when initial exposures happened whereas if we wait six months there will be no telling because asymptomatic people or those with light symptoms could have gotten it almost any time as opposed to two months ago as many anecdotal reports suggest.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 28, 2020, 07:10:04 PM
From the linked article:

Quote
United Biomedical’s testing program began last week, starting with first responders, health care workers, teachers, essential workers and their families. So far, no one has tested positive. Records show one San Miguel resident, who has not yet taken the new antibody test, was confirmed to have COVID-19 by a test that looks for the virus' genetic material, not bloodborne antibodies.

Going from that, I'd say the Telluride ski resort escaped having an infected and contagious person spending much, if any, time on the lifts or at areas where they could spread it. Or their test is defective.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 28, 2020, 09:33:28 PM
More about masks. Nothing definitive but leaning toward public use being beneficial. Not really much new so won't quote anything  this time.

https://qz.com/1826717/do-masks-protect-against-coronavirus/?utm_source=YPL&yptr=yahoo
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 29, 2020, 01:18:57 AM
I’m having a tough time reconciling this. From what I’ve read, Japan's first case was reported in early January. No social-distancing. No national emergency declared. Population 126 million—yet only 52 deaths.

Meanwhile, Italy’s been locked for weeks & is seeing no progress

Anyone have theories as to why? Please don’t say it’s because Italians kiss more,
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 29, 2020, 02:40:50 AM
Face masks are probably part of it, they've been widely used in Asia for a long time, with strong encouragement to use them when a potential pandemic is on the loose.

As previously discussed, and openly acknowledged even in the US, while the use of a mask the prevent catching something may be questionable(and present something of a moral hazard, as people may put themselves at risk because "the mask will save them"), someone who is infected wearing a mask can potentially reduce the spread considerably. Maybe not stop it completely, but reduce it by a lot. (And that also is another hazard, as people can then decide it's okay to not self-quarantine because their mask is protecting others)

Basically people are very effective at finding ways to rationalize stupid decisions, so the US Health Officials--with a particular need due to shortage, have instead opted to tell people to not bother with the masks.

I could fully believe that wide-spread mask use in Japan has potentially kept the R factor to somewhere close to 1, which has kept them from having a mass contagion so far.

Unlike the South Korea case, where a super-spreader found their into a mega-Church which disallowed the use of face masks while inside the building to my understanding.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 29, 2020, 03:08:06 AM
For italy,

they have a physically intimate culture - they touch friends, family and strangers regularly.  They also have multigenerational living - grandpa and grandma live with their children and grandchildren.  They are also highly religious and thus you get large amounts of socialization crowds.   They are loud (which means more aerosolization of saliva). They also have poor hand washing habits relative to many countries,

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-european-countries-that-wash-their-hands-least-after-going-to-the-toilet-a6757711.html

They also largely ignored the spread it till it was already out of control.

Japan is hyper hygenic compared to many western countries.  Also they do bowing instead of shaking, and many people wear masks for allergies, to prevent sun damage, as well as to prevent illness spread, etc.  The masks don't so much prevent you from 'getting' as it keeps infected and unaware from spreading.  They also have public transport habits such as traveling silently, and not talking on cell phones, that prevent aerosolization of saliva.

Also they took significant measures immediately - particularly discouraging enclosed gatherings - which have a 20 fold higher risk transmission than outdoors. They immediately began testing and doing track and trace and isolations as needed.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 29, 2020, 07:22:01 AM
Your points about cultural differences and homogeneous mask usage make sense, but I'm not sure that Japan did take concerted early and significant action - sure they closed schools, but they didn't really encourage or enforce social distancing... it certainly didn't take hold, as illustrated by the cherry blossom fiasco last week.

Also, their rate of testing is one of the lowest in any first world country -  only about 0.015% of the population has been tested...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 29, 2020, 09:52:48 AM
For some, you have to ask yourself whether you're going to live in fear or have faith in the Lord.  The chosen have chosen for their flocks.

Central church hosts more than 1,800 people amid covid-19 outbreak (https://www.brproud.com/health/coronavirus/central-church-hosts-1800-people-amid-covid-19-outbreak/)

Liberty University let more than 1,000 students return to campus during the coronavirus outbreak (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/24/us/liberty-university-reopens-coronavirus-trnd/index.html)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 29, 2020, 10:43:56 AM
I agree, some people are being criminally irresponsible - but I am not convinced that Liberty University is actually acting irresponsibly - my understanding is that the majority of those on campus are foreign students who would otherwise have nowhere else to go if kicked out of their residences.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 29, 2020, 10:50:49 AM
Your points about cultural differences and homogeneous mask usage make sense, but I'm not sure that Japan did take concerted early and significant action - sure they closed schools, but they didn't really encourage or enforce social distancing... it certainly didn't take hold, as illustrated by the cherry blossom fiasco last week.

Also, their rate of testing is one of the lowest in any first world country -  only about 0.015% of the population has been tested...

They shut down travel from foreign nationals from China February 1.  They did quarantine and tracing of the contacts.  If you can largely prevent it getting in, then it can't spread.  Asside from China - their next most popualr tourism sources South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan - all had excellent responses so not much risk of getting infected tourists from those locations.  I think they've been slow to ban travel from the US - which might hurt them.

The cherry blossoms - pretty much every one was wearing masks, and the photos I've seen were taken at bottlenecks, and it was outdoors.  The risk wasn't that high with outdoor + masks.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 29, 2020, 10:57:00 AM
Some numbers from the USA
It looks to be just the beginning, and the rate of increase in daily deaths is itself increasing, as expected.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 29, 2020, 11:03:41 AM
I agree, some people are being criminally irresponsible - but I am not convinced that Liberty University is actually acting irresponsibly - my understanding is that the majority of those on campus are foreign students who would otherwise have nowhere else to go if kicked out of their residences.

That applies to some of the returning students, but many others are coming back, as well.  Not all dorms will be opened for the returnees.  In an interview, Falwell justified the policy by saying that "most of the students were not at risk due to their age".  State officials are saying that they were blindsided and misled by the scale of the influx and are concerned that the state's social distancing mandate can't be observed in the dorms.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 29, 2020, 12:22:12 PM
On FoxNews/Hannity: Trum disputes need for 30,000 ventilators (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cuomo-coronavirus-ventilators-trump-urgency)
Quote
"I don't believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators," Trump said on "Hannity" Thursday night in an apparent reference to Cuomo's recent claim that the state needed 30,000 ventilators. "You know, you go into major hospitals sometimes and they'll have two ventilators and now all of a sudden they're saying, 'Can we order 30,000 ventilators?'"
Yesterday, there were 222 deaths in New York, which equates to roughly 500 ICU cases, 1000 severe cases and about 750 ventilators required.  Currently, the number of deaths in New York is doubling every 2 days.

Just doing back of the napkin math, here and assuming a doubling of deaths and ICU cases every 3 days (not 2) we get the following:
Now, if instead we assume a doubling of deaths and ICU cases every 2 days:Clearly, there are other variables at play, not least is whether and to what extent physical distancing in the past 2 weeks will affect that trend.

But it's also clear that 30,000 might in fact not be enough ventilators if current trends continue.

Oh, and from that same article - it referenced the following Trump tweet:
Quote
General Motors MUST immediately open their stupidly abandoned Lordstown plant in Ohio, or some other plant, and START MAKING VENTILATORS, NOW!!!!!!  FORD, GET GOING ON VENTILATORS, FAST!!!!!!  @GeneralMotors  @Ford
But GM sold that plant/buildings back in November 2019...  I'm not sure how GM would go about "opening" it...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 29, 2020, 12:39:11 PM
A tale of two war zones in NYC hospital updates.

The foxnews link below refers to 2nd hand info from "a third-year internal medicine medical resident" about hospitals being "overwhelmed", and that some are "so overrun with dying patients that they’ve brought in refrigerated trucks to handle the bodies"

https://www.foxnews.com/health/nyc-hospitals-overwhelmed-by-coronavirus-patients-resident-warns

Then there's a person walking around a hospital in downtown Brooklyn yesterday that seems quite counter to what the media is saying. Is it possible that this one particular hospital has been spared the carnage? Maybe. Or maybe inside its complete pandemonium but outside it's perfectly quiet? Dunno.

https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/1243948364695298050

Ornery posters are probably outliers re: news skepticism, but I'm really concerned that manufactured panic has outstripped any utility it could possibly have.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 29, 2020, 12:48:38 PM
... or you could look at the numbers...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: msquared on March 29, 2020, 12:57:26 PM
My mom spends the winters on Cayman Island. They have been in lockdown for a while.  She sent me this article about the lockdown.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daphneewingchow/2020/03/29/how-a-little-island-in-the-caribbean-sea-is-standing-up-to-the-goliath-of-coronavirus/#5ec62477235e
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 29, 2020, 01:06:21 PM
... or you could look at the numbers...

I absolutely am looking at the numbers and taking them seriously.

I'm already operating within the prescribed social guidelines and will continue to do so.

That said, with so many unknowns, I'm going to take every projection from the experts with a 10-pound bag of salt. So you'll forgive me if I have the temerity to be skeptical of DonaldD's napkin math on an internet forum.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 29, 2020, 01:20:12 PM
Why would you believe my analysis?  The historical numbers and trends are there to see - what used to be known as "facts" but which are now known as "fake news".

Will that trend continue it increase, will the rate of increase level off?  This are open questions.

But looking at images inside of one hospital and using that anecdotal 'evidence' to trigger oneself?  That's what I was pointing out, and suggesting that you look at the current numbers and trends, instead.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 29, 2020, 03:34:26 PM
A tale of two war zones in NYC hospital updates.

The foxnews link below refers to 2nd hand info from "a third-year internal medicine medical resident" about hospitals being "overwhelmed", and that some are "so overrun with dying patients that they’ve brought in refrigerated trucks to handle the bodies"

https://www.foxnews.com/health/nyc-hospitals-overwhelmed-by-coronavirus-patients-resident-warns

Then there's a person walking around a hospital in downtown Brooklyn yesterday that seems quite counter to what the media is saying. Is it possible that this one particular hospital has been spared the carnage? Maybe. Or maybe inside its complete pandemonium but outside it's perfectly quiet? Dunno.

https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/1243948364695298050

Ornery posters are probably outliers re: news skepticism, but I'm really concerned that manufactured panic has outstripped any utility it could possibly have.

According to the Brooklyn Hospital Center website, as of March 25 they had tested and 72 patients positive for coronavirus and have a total capacity of about 130 beds.  Perhaps they aren't equipped for that number of patients and send them elsewhere.  A commenter on the post says the hospital is not in Brooklyn, but in Ft. Greene.  I don't know if that's true or where that is, exactly.  Not to be skeptical, but Todd Starnes (a FOX conservative commentator) refers to the "lamestream media" in his piece.  Somehow I get the feeling this is not a particularly honest report.   When was this video shot?  Is there more context about why there aren't more people around (in the rain)?

Edit: My mistake. Here's an update on Todd Starnes from October, 2019:

Quote
Fox News has parted ways with far-right radio host Todd Starnes, The Wrap confirmed Wednesday afternoon.

The conservative talking head is best-known for his incendiary anti-LGBT, xenophobic, and racist remarks both on-air, across Fox News programming and on his Fox Nation and Fox News Radio shows, and in his FoxNews.com columns. Perhaps most famously, Starnes compared migrants to Nazis and declared that America is being “invaded by a horde.” And as The Wrap noted, his most recent brush with controversy came just days ago when he and a guest agreed on his radio show that Democrats may worship Moloch, a pagan god that allowed child sacrifice.

Starnes also has a long history of erroneous reporting, having once been fired from Baptist Press over “factual and contextual errors” and “misrepresentations.”
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 29, 2020, 04:25:16 PM
Statements from this thread that did not age well...

Quote
This virus keeps getting headlines and it's just stupid.

I think we're probably good for another week or so of this and then they'll move on to the next thing.

If you can get a box [of N95 masks] you're not taking away from healthcare providers

COVID 19 just isn't that serious.   
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 29, 2020, 04:53:59 PM
Quote from: Scottf
https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/1243948364695298050

Ornery posters are probably outliers re: news skepticism
It's unclear exactly what you are saying here... Was it that, even though the link is to a statement by Todd Starnes, towards whom you maintain a fastidious level of skepticism, you still cannot discount what he wrote without additional investigation?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 29, 2020, 06:08:48 PM
I meant that people in this forum are probably more skeptical in general as to what various news/anecdotal sources are conveying. I could be wrong, maybe it’s more me.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 29, 2020, 06:22:22 PM
Statements from this thread that did not age well...

Quote
This virus keeps getting headlines and it's just stupid.

I think we're probably good for another week or so of this and then they'll move on to the next thing.

If you can get a box [of N95 masks] you're not taking away from healthcare providers

COVID 19 just isn't that serious.   

A few weeks from now, there’ll be a lot of statements that didn't age well.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 29, 2020, 06:23:08 PM
Right, Scottf. So that was you being skeptical of Todd Starnes' article?

edited to make clear this response was addressed to Scottf's post at 06:08:48
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 29, 2020, 06:25:32 PM
I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 29, 2020, 06:41:30 PM
Quote
A few weeks from now, there’ll be a lot of statements that didn't age well.
Probably.  But those quotes are already obviously, egregiously wrong.

You and I rarely see eye to eye on much, but I will say that many of your posts on this topic were bang on, and I would consider most of them reasonable.  Now, sometime the posts veered into partisanship - I'm ignoring those.  But there has been a lot of reasonable posts from most people on this thread.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 29, 2020, 06:54:57 PM
It's no secret that I have no respect for Trump, but I'll give credit where it is due.

Quote
President Donald Trump said Sunday he would extend his social distancing guidelines to April 30 as novel coronavirus continues to spread throughout the US.

"The better you do, the faster this whole nightmare will end," the President said at a White House news conference. "Therefore, we will be extending our guidelines to April 30th, to slow the spread. On Tuesday we will be finalizing these plans and providing a summary of our findings, supporting data and strategy to the American people."

Good job Mr. President. Keep it up.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 29, 2020, 08:03:03 PM
...Currently, the number of deaths in New York is doubling every 2 days.

That is an unsustainable rate. Donald Duck was once set to be paid by Uncle Scrooge for something, so the Woodchucks helped him out. They took a checkerboard and asked Uncle Scrooge to pay him a penny on the first day and put it on the first square, then he was to double it each day and put two cents on the second square, and so on. Scrooge agreed. There is not enough money in the world to fill that checkerboard. Doubling gets out of whack rapidly. Halfway through the board would be over $42 million. The full board would be $18+ with 18 zeros after it. Two months and everyone on Earth would have died twice.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 29, 2020, 08:05:53 PM
Right, Scottf. So that was you being skeptical of Todd Starnes' article?

edited to make clear this response was addressed to Scottf's post at 06:08:48

Yes, I’m skeptical of a lot of the information being bandied about right now. I’m skeptical when I hear that NYC hospitals are completely overwhelmed and also skeptical of footage that makes it seem like any other day. The media has no motivation to promote information in a non-sensational way, and there is not shortage of nutbars with conspiracy theories.

I recommend skepticism as a baseline in times like these while also trying to err on the side of common sense.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 29, 2020, 08:30:27 PM
That is an unsustainable rate.

It is indeed.  Real world infections are sigmoid.  Once it hits about 30-50% of the population, the herd immunity causes it to rapidly decelerate till reaching about 70% of the population and then will largely die off.  That is why you don't see 100% penetrance with infections.

Many growth processes have seeming exponential growth when resources are rich, but as the resource becomes scarce the competition for resources strangle the growth curve.  In this case the scarce resource will be uninfected humans.

Of course 70% penetrance at .5% mortality rate is 1.15 million dead.  If mortality is 1% 2.3 million dead.  If the system is overwhelmed and most can't be treated could be 4% mortality - 9.2 million dead.

Quote
Donald Duck was once set to be paid by Uncle Scrooge for something, so the Woodchucks helped him out. They took a checkerboard and asked Uncle Scrooge to pay him a penny on the first day and put it on the first square, then he was to double it each day and put two cents on the second square, and so on. Scrooge agreed. There is not enough money in the world to fill that checkerboard. Doubling gets out of whack rapidly. Halfway through the board would be over $42 million. The full board would be $18+ with 18 zeros after it. Two months and everyone on Earth would have died twice.

This is based on an old fable called the Kings Chessboard.  A wise man was offered a reward by a king - and the wise man suggested that for each square of the chessboard the king pay him double the rice/wheat of the previous square starting with one grain of rice/wheat in the first square.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 29, 2020, 08:54:30 PM
...This is based on an old fable called the Kings Chessboard.  A wise man was offered a reward by a king - and the wise man suggested that for each square of the chessboard the king pay him double the rice/wheat of the previous square starting with one grain of rice/wheat in the first square.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem

Such a shame, no mention on Wikipedia about Uncle Scrooge, Donald, or the Woodchucks. Doesn't anyone bother with classic literature anymore?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 30, 2020, 12:20:59 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/choir-decided-ahead-rehearsal-now-023414705.html

"Experts said the choir outbreak is consistent with a growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted through aerosols — particles smaller than 5 micrometers that can float in the air for minutes or longer.

The World Health Organization has downplayed the possibility of transmission in aerosols, stressing that the virus is spread through much larger "respiratory droplets," which are emitted when an infected person coughs or sneezes and quickly fall to a surface.

But a study published March 17 in the New England Journal of Medicine found that when the virus was suspended in a mist under laboratory conditions it remained "viable and infectious" for three hours — though researchers have said that time period would probably be no more than a half-hour in real-world conditions.

"Marr, the Virginia Tech researcher, said that the choir outbreak reminded her of a classic case study in the spread of infectious disease.

In 1977, an Alaska Airlines flight returned to Homer, Alaska, after experiencing engine trouble and sat on the tarmac there for four hours with the ventilation system off.

Of the 49 passengers on board, 35 developed flu symptoms and five were hospitalized. Researchers ultimately traced the outbreak to a woman who felt fine when she boarded but later became ill.

The case jolted epidemiologists into the realization that influenza could spread through the air.

Research has already shown that the coronavirus is nearly twice as contagious as influenza and far more deadly."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without masks, one precaution that could be taken to reduce the chance of spreading the virus could be to simply stop talking. Everyone just try to breathe through their nose. I wonder if that would help. LetterRip mentioned it regarding the Japanese. If you had a packed train full of silent people compared to a packed train full of loud people jibber jabbering on their cell phones trying to be heard over one another at the end of the train ride with the same initial conditions of asymptomatic carriers present would there be a big difference in how many new people got infected?

I doubt this would catch on but one idea would be for people while they are out shopping and engaging in necessary interactions to do as little talking as possible. Our government could recommend some simple signs for the grocery store clerks and customers to exchange the usual pleasantries silently. And closed mouth smiles are of course always acceptable. Salutes for greetings may take the place of the elbow bumps as salutes work great even at a distance.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 30, 2020, 05:48:55 AM
I agree, some people are being criminally irresponsible - but I am not convinced that Liberty University is actually acting irresponsibly - my understanding is that the majority of those on campus are foreign students who would otherwise have nowhere else to go if kicked out of their residences.

As of Friday a dozen students at Liberty U have been diagnosed with COVID-19.  God only knows if there's a connection between that and them all being back in the dorms together.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 30, 2020, 07:58:43 AM
That is an unsustainable rate.

It is indeed.  Real world infections are sigmoid.  Once it hits about 30-50% of the population, the herd immunity causes it to rapidly decelerate till reaching about 70% of the population and then will largely die off.
Yes... of course, New York won't be anywhere near that level of penetration by the time the state reaches 30,000 people requiring ventilators.  So herd immunity will have no effect on the next 10 days' growth in infections (many of which are already dialled in.)

The only real question is how well changes in personal behaviours implemented in the past couple of weeks have affected and will affect the spread.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 30, 2020, 09:02:52 AM
An interesting idea. Immunity certificates. If the immunity holds this would of course help the economy tremendously, if they can get accurate tests.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/germany-could-issue-hundreds-thousands-114500027.html

"German researchers plan to send out hundreds of thousands of coronavirus antibody tests over the coming weeks.
Individuals who test positive could be given an 'immunity certificate' which would allow them to leave their coronavirus lockdown early. Other countries, including the United Kingdom, are planning similar mass-testing in order to ease the global lockdown...

...However, coronavirus testing has so far been used with mixed success around the world.

Spain was recently forced to return tens of thousands of rapid coronavirus tests from a Chinese company after they were found to have only a 30% accuracy.

Some tests have also reportedly demonstrated false positives, where they have detected antibodies to other much more common forms of the coronavirus."
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 30, 2020, 10:03:58 AM
I could see an unintended consequence if isolation measures last too long, and insufficient support is provided to those without certificates... people who become so desperate that they self-infect so that they could resume employment...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 30, 2020, 10:15:53 AM
Daily deaths in Italy dropped - pretty significantly - from about 900 the previous two days to about 750 yesterday.  Hopefully, Italy is turning the corner.

To date, there have now been (as of yesterday) 10,779 deaths due to coronavirus in Italy - that's roughly equivalent to 65,000 deaths in a country the size of the USA
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 30, 2020, 12:10:14 PM
It might be turning the corner, or it might be protocol improvements.  It appears that putting ventilated people on their stomachs at a slight decline of the body (head lower than feet)- improves O2 stats and thus might be improving survival rates and decreasing demand for ventilators (makes it easier to move fluid out of the lungs and mucus isn't blocking the aveolar sacs as much).

Quote
One technique he said had yielded dramatic results was to have patients lie on their stomach instead of on their back while on a ventilator. “Suddenly the oxygen level in the blood jumped by hundreds of percents,” he said.

https://atlantajewishtimes.timesofisrael.com/israeli-doctor-in-italy-says-new-innovative-treatments-flattening-the-curve/

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 30, 2020, 12:20:30 PM
In addition to the death rate improvement - the rate of new cases in Italy has also levelled off over the past 10 days - it's impossible to tell without knowing all the stats around the number of tests being given, but it looks like the newly-infected rate is now linear.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on March 30, 2020, 12:23:30 PM
Daily deaths in Italy dropped - pretty significantly - from about 900 the previous two days to about 750 yesterday.  Hopefully, Italy is turning the corner.

To date, there have now been (as of yesterday) 10,779 deaths due to coronavirus in Italy - that's roughly equivalent to 65,000 deaths in a country the size of the USA

About deaths and cases: right now in Italy the availability of test kits is quite low, and Lombardy especially is practicing a criticized regime of only testing the people with strong symptoms. Veneto is better (and in fact is doing a better job of containing the spread), but still, even if in most countries you can estimate that the real numbers of infected is higher than the number of verified ones, here experts estimate that ratio could even be 1/10.

Also, about deaths: always due to the lack of testing kits, especially in Lombardy, many that resides in nursing homes die even before being tested, and thus do not enter statistics. There are many nursing homes that have gone from 3-4 deaths a month to 40-50 deaths in the past month, without any testing or time to call for an ambulance.

Another phenomenon that's happening more and more, people that lives alone, both old and not so much old, that for whatever reason do not go to the hospital, and are found only later dead in their homes by neighbors that get suspicious not seeing them... be it for simple fatalism, or because at first they ignore the symptoms and when they worsen they are unable to call for help.

We will know how bad this have been only some time after the things will have settled.

But yes, it seems the countermeasures are starting to show their effect. In my city, that's in one of the regions that got hit hard but not even near to Lombardy level, a friend that work in our hospital is telling me that they are managing the flux: new cases and recovered people are more or less balancing right now, and we've still a third of the ICU we prepared free (they managed to quintuple the ICU beds in a week... my friend was really impressed by how everybody rose to the occasion), and we started flying in cases from Lombardy to help them.

This of course does not mean that we can simply let the lock down expire: if we did it, it would start climbing up again quite quickly.

Anyway: today numbers are +1648 cases, with +1590 that instead are recovered: we are getting near a balance...
Deaths are +812, still high, but those will likely lag a bit the other numbers, as people take a while to either die or recover after getting infected...

https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Infografica_30marzo%20ENG.pdf
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 30, 2020, 02:19:39 PM
Some good news from New York - though the number of cases is still increasing, the rate of doubling has slowed to every 6 days, as opposed to between every 2 or 3 days last week:
Quote
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said the rate of hospitalizations for coronavirus cases in the state has slowed, citing the rate of "doubling" of people admitted to the hospital for Covid-19.

Cuomo said the rate of new hospitalizations is now doubling every six days, as compared to every two and three days like last week.

"So, while the overall number is going up, the rate of doubling is actually down," Cuomo said.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 30, 2020, 03:06:25 PM
I've seen various charts that are flattening, at least some. Hospitalization rate is a better measure than new cases, IMO. Glad to see that's what Cuomo is using - although I hope it isn't because they are sending more borderline people home instead...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 31, 2020, 04:07:19 AM
Weird followup (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/coronavirus-deniers-take-aim-hospitals-pandemic-grows-n1172336) on the Starnes video of the Brooklyn Hospital Center.  Starnes is one of a group of "coronavirus deniers" who stake out hospitals across the country and video them during quiet moments.  They post their videos to conservative web sites to make the argument that the lamestream media is trying to scare the public into believing that the COVID-19 disease is worse than it really is.

Quote
On Saturday, a video taken outside the Brooklyn Hospital Center in New York went viral, showing a quiet scene in an attempt to counter the idea that the coronavirus pandemic has strained some hospitals.

The video, taken by former Fox News commentator Todd Starnes, jump-started a conspiracy theory that resulted in a trending hashtag and millions of video views — all of which pushed the idea that the pandemic has been overblown by public health organizations and the media.

A day later, a different video of the same hospital went viral on Facebook and Twitter. It showed bodies being loaded onto an 18-wheeler outside the same hospital. The video, which was retweeted by a member of the New York City Council, was later confirmed as legitimate by the hospital.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 31, 2020, 04:27:26 AM
The mask task.

https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-weighing-advising-americans-wear-070300787.html

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is considering whether to update its guidelines on the new coronavirus to advise Americans to wear homemade masks outside of the home — not so much to protect the people wearing the mask but as another tool to limit the spread of COVID-19, The Washington Post reports. The new virus is spread mainly through saliva droplets emitted during a cough, sneeze, or even talking, and having a mask to capture those drops would presumably keep sick, especially asymptomatic, coronavirus carriers from spreading the disease."
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 31, 2020, 09:39:39 AM
The mask task.

https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-weighing-advising-americans-wear-070300787.html

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is considering whether to update its guidelines on the new coronavirus to advise Americans to wear homemade masks outside of the home — not so much to protect the people wearing the mask but as another tool to limit the spread of COVID-19, The Washington Post reports. The new virus is spread mainly through saliva droplets emitted during a cough, sneeze, or even talking, and having a mask to capture those drops would presumably keep sick, especially asymptomatic, coronavirus carriers from spreading the disease."

Why are you so fixated on this one issue? Are you hoping for everyone to wear masks for your protection, or something else? The fact still remains that hospitals are out of masks and some healthcare professionals are wearing halloween masks. But sure, let's make sure that random people are instructed to get them.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 31, 2020, 11:03:05 AM
Weird followup (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/coronavirus-deniers-take-aim-hospitals-pandemic-grows-n1172336) on the Starnes video of the Brooklyn Hospital Center.  Starnes is one of a group of "coronavirus deniers" who stake out hospitals across the country and video them during quiet moments.  They post their videos to conservative web sites to make the argument that the lamestream media is trying to scare the public into believing that the COVID-19 disease is worse than it really is.

I'm not sure how organized it is or if it's just a bunch of skeptic types trying to get their 15 minutes. I can see the path to the motivation, especially when you've got nonsense like CBS running B roll footage of an Italian emergency room and claiming it's NYC.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 31, 2020, 11:05:37 AM
The mask task.

https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-weighing-advising-americans-wear-070300787.html

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is considering whether to update its guidelines on the new coronavirus to advise Americans to wear homemade masks outside of the home — not so much to protect the people wearing the mask but as another tool to limit the spread of COVID-19, The Washington Post reports. The new virus is spread mainly through saliva droplets emitted during a cough, sneeze, or even talking, and having a mask to capture those drops would presumably keep sick, especially asymptomatic, coronavirus carriers from spreading the disease."

I thought this has always been the official recommendation. That masks prevent people from spreading but don't necessarily protect the person wearing the mask (unless its an N95 mask). Again it comes down to supply - it isn't helpful to recommend people where masks unless you have enough masks for people. It will be TP run version 2. Hospitals are still struggling to get enough masks, adding 300 million people trying to buy them all at once isn't going to help matters.

I do think IF enough masks can be produced they can be a tool that is used to help society slowly reopen. But we still need to get the number of cases way down so that we can implement isolation and contact tracing. Once the number is down, masks, contact tracing, and broad testing can hopefully keep things in check until we have a safe effective vaccine.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 31, 2020, 11:09:47 AM
I'm starting to see more mask theories circulate and hypothetical connections to low transmission rates in areas/countries where civilian masks use is more common.

I don't have the info to support or deny whether widespread mask use should be considered but I don't think it researching it should be attached to mask availability. Simple instructions on how to make masks are easily available if needed. They obviously wouldn't be N95 spec, but I've also heard anecdotes around even a bandanna around your mouth and nose having 50% efficacy of a medical mask. Of course the problem with anecdotes...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 31, 2020, 11:15:35 AM
Weird followup (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/coronavirus-deniers-take-aim-hospitals-pandemic-grows-n1172336) on the Starnes video of the Brooklyn Hospital Center.  Starnes is one of a group of "coronavirus deniers" who stake out hospitals across the country and video them during quiet moments.  They post their videos to conservative web sites to make the argument that the lamestream media is trying to scare the public into believing that the COVID-19 disease is worse than it really is.

I'm not sure how organized it is or if it's just a bunch of skeptic types trying to get their 15 minutes. I can see the path to the motivation, especially when you've got nonsense like CBS running B roll footage of an Italian emergency room and claiming it's NYC.

Not sure what "organized" means if multiple far-right conservatives are all doing the same thing on their own because it's a good idea.  Interesting how the footage messup is so important to you given all of the misinformation and misdirection Trump spews everytime he gets in front of a camera.  Yesterday he said he had not “heard about testing in weeks,” as if there's even a remote possibility that that is true.  That kind of claim hides the fact that Governors in states all over the country are complaining to him that they have a critical shortage of testing kits.  I suppose some people will believe that, not to mention that he thinks that doctors and hospitals are asking for ventilators they don't need and maybe selling them to make money.  Which do you think matters more, the CBS footage or Trump's continual misstatements of fact?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 31, 2020, 11:50:05 AM
Weird followup (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/coronavirus-deniers-take-aim-hospitals-pandemic-grows-n1172336) on the Starnes video of the Brooklyn Hospital Center.  Starnes is one of a group of "coronavirus deniers" who stake out hospitals across the country and video them during quiet moments.  They post their videos to conservative web sites to make the argument that the lamestream media is trying to scare the public into believing that the COVID-19 disease is worse than it really is.

I'm not sure how organized it is or if it's just a bunch of skeptic types trying to get their 15 minutes. I can see the path to the motivation, especially when you've got nonsense like CBS running B roll footage of an Italian emergency room and claiming it's NYC.

Not sure what "organized" means if multiple far-right conservatives are all doing the same thing on their own because it's a good idea.  Interesting how the footage messup is so important to you given all of the misinformation and misdirection Trump spews everytime he gets in front of a camera.  Yesterday he said he had not “heard about testing in weeks,” as if there's even a remote possibility that that is true.  That kind of claim hides the fact that Governors in states all over the country are complaining to him that they have a critical shortage of testing kits.  I suppose some people will believe that, not to mention that he thinks that doctors and hospitals are asking for ventilators they don't need and maybe selling them to make money.  Which do you think matters more, the CBS footage or Trump's continual misstatements of fact?

You're assuming the CBS footage is "so important to me" because I refer to it as potential motivation for certain people to nominate themselves public reporters?

I've already stated that my default stance is skepticism and the CBS footage is one example why. I've also said I'm equally skeptical around what these iphone reporters are allegedly showing and don't necessarily think it reveals any kind of broad conspiracy.

I can't read your mind but it appears as though your response approach often defaults to whatever is the quickest path to circle back around to Trump.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 31, 2020, 12:13:58 PM

You're assuming the CBS footage is "so important to me" because I refer to it as potential motivation for certain people to nominate themselves public reporters?

I've already stated that my default stance is skepticism and the CBS footage is one example why. I've also said I'm equally skeptical around what these iphone reporters are allegedly showing and don't necessarily think it reveals any kind of broad conspiracy.

I can't read your mind but it appears as though your response approach often defaults to whatever is the quickest path to circle back around to Trump.
You say your default stance is skepticism, but (and you may not realize this) your skepticism tends to be directed in only one direction.  On the previous page, you wrote:
Quote
Ornery posters are probably outliers re: news skepticism, but I'm really concerned that manufactured panic has outstripped any utility it could possibly have.
"Manufactured panic" - you are pretty clear about what you are skeptical about, and it doesn't seem to be towards those sources downplaying the risks associated to the pandemic.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 31, 2020, 12:15:55 PM
Words of wisdom:
Quote
The nation's top infectious disease specialist, Dr. Anthony Fauci, told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday that substantially more people could die: "Looking at what we're seeing now, I would say that 100,000 and 200,000" deaths could occur.
"But I don't want to be held to that," said Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He cautioned that modeling is imperfect, and said, "I just don't think that we really need to make a projection when it's such a moving target that you can so easily be wrong and mislead people."
Being careful to qualify his statements, and to provide context and caveats - as opposed to giving a false sense of confidence to definitive statements as is done by some politicians.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 31, 2020, 12:23:53 PM
"Manufactured panic" - you are pretty clear about what you are skeptical about, and it doesn't seem to be towards those sources downplaying the risks associated to the pandemic.

Guilty as charged. Mainstream media has such broad reach that I tend to focus more on them than the tinfoil hat crowd.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 31, 2020, 12:26:45 PM
Quote
I can't read your mind but it appears as though your response approach often defaults to whatever is the quickest path to circle back around to Trump.

It's like gravity.  He pulls everything toward him.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 31, 2020, 12:27:55 PM
Words of wisdom:
Quote
The nation's top infectious disease specialist, Dr. Anthony Fauci, told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday that substantially more people could die: "Looking at what we're seeing now, I would say that 100,000 and 200,000" deaths could occur.
"But I don't want to be held to that," said Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He cautioned that modeling is imperfect, and said, "I just don't think that we really need to make a projection when it's such a moving target that you can so easily be wrong and mislead people."
Being careful to qualify his statements, and to provide context and caveats - as opposed to giving a false sense of confidence to definitive statements as is done by some politicians.

I appreciate a measured approach, but why lead with a projection only to immediately say we shouldn't make projections because it's such a moving target? Why not just state the latter?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 31, 2020, 12:34:21 PM
I agree his caution is somewhat inartful.  But the reason to give number ranges, even if overly-broad, is pretty clear - to communicate the seriousness of the situation.  By just saying "it's a moving target" doesn't communicate his best understanding of the situation, which is that he feels this is an order of magnitude worse than the seasonal flu... even with all the suppression/isolation activities in place.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 31, 2020, 12:37:33 PM
About half a year ago (or a year ago), long before the outbreak - an acquaintance - who is an opera singer - talked about the problem that opera singers have that it is extremely important that they don't get sick, and thus they had to social isolate whenever someone they knew was ill.  So I tried to research and see if there was anything to help him out.

THe research I saw showed a significant reduction in flu transmission on airplanes with masks - unfortunately I don't recall if everyone on the plane wore masks, or if non-ill individuals wore masks.

He was interested in the idea - but didn't think it was feasible to wear a mask, so I did more research and nasal plugs seemed fairly effective as well.  I was actually planning to suggest a clinical trial of nose plug filters for a friend who recently became a hospital director as a prevention method of flu for hospital staff that don't regularly wear masks.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 31, 2020, 01:11:59 PM
In my opinion, the news isn't doing a great job panicking people if they are out having "coronavirus parties", crowding the waterfront to get a look at the navy hospital ship, or going to crowded religious services. We need them to terrify people more, not less.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 31, 2020, 01:16:12 PM
The news can't fix stupid. Martial law would, but probably not in our long term best interest.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 31, 2020, 01:21:35 PM
None of these health care workers flying to NYC are wearing masks. What a bunch of idiots, right cherry? Some are wearing gloves, though.

article and photo (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/photo-of-health-care-workers-flying-to-help-ny-gets-love/2349994/)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on March 31, 2020, 01:29:45 PM
None of these health care workers flying to NYC are wearing masks. What a bunch of idiots, right cherry? Some are wearing gloves, though.

article and photo (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/photo-of-health-care-workers-flying-to-help-ny-gets-love/2349994/)

Or they recognize the limitations of masks in protecting themselves. Masks have benefits at a society wide level. The best information to date is that they prevent spreading the virus, not as beneficial for personal protection.

Edit to add: Or they are keeping any masks they may have until they reach the hospitals where they know they will be interacting with infected people.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on March 31, 2020, 01:51:00 PM
I'm sure they have all had the Bayer vaccine and are taking profilactic chloroquine... [/Sarcasm]
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on March 31, 2020, 01:53:26 PM
None of these health care workers flying to NYC are wearing masks. What a bunch of idiots, right cherry? Some are wearing gloves, though.

article and photo (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/photo-of-health-care-workers-flying-to-help-ny-gets-love/2349994/)

Or they recognize the limitations of masks in protecting themselves. Masks have benefits at a society wide level. The best information to date is that they prevent spreading the virus, not as beneficial for personal protection.

Edit to add: Or they are keeping any masks they may have until they reach the hospitals where they know they will be interacting with infected people.

Except if you're one of those who think that it is important for people with no visible symptoms to protect others to wear them... well these people who are more likely than anyone else to get infected, and the most knowledgeable, don't think so.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 31, 2020, 01:56:19 PM
Here's a not-so-hypothetical that requires a bit of analysis, and what I'm not seeing any media dig into.

If we have a massive shortage of PPE because our stockpiles and backups were inadequate - as experts seem to be saying, what is the main reason why?

Further, when should such stockpiles have been established and confirmed? I'm seeing lots of comments from experts about shortages but I haven't seen anyone connect the dots as to what *should have been done prior to the pandemic.

Should the Trump administration have immediately examined this when he took office and realized we had pandemic level shortfalls of PPE?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 31, 2020, 05:47:24 PM
Quote
The coronavirus may not be as deadly as previously suggested, according to a new study that accounts for cases that were not diagnosed.

The study published Monday in the medical journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases estimated that the death rate will be 0.66%, which is much lower than figures between 2% and 3.4% that have come out of Wuhan, China, according to CNN.

Researchers said the lower coronavirus mortality rate was determined by accounting for cases that went undiagnosed — possibly because they were mild or had no symptoms.

To do this, researchers used modeling based on the number of detected cases among repatriated citizens who were aggressively tested for the virus.

But in line with other studies, the researchers found that the majority of fatalities are among adults who were age 80 or older.

“There might be outlying cases that get a lot of media attention, but our analysis very clearly shows that at aged 50 and over, hospitalization is much more likely than in those under 50, and a greater proportion of cases are likely to be fatal,” Azra Ghani, a professor at Imperial College London and an author of the study, said in a statement.

0.66% - yeah, that's not great but it's a hell of a lot lower than we've been told over and over and over. And it's the elderly that skew it that high. So that's what we're literally wrecking the economy over.

Quote
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. expects the U.S. economy to experience a far deeper slump than previously anticipated as the coronavirus pandemic hammers businesses, causing a wave of mass unemployment.

The world’s largest economy will shrink an annualized 34% in the second quarter, compared with an earlier estimate of 24%, economists led by Jan Hatzius wrote in a report. Unemployment will soar to 15% by mid-year, up from a previous forecast of 9%, they wrote.

They wanted just a little recession to get Trump, created a mass hysteria to drive it, and now are getting what pretty much looks like a depression. Great job, everyone. Just *censored*ing great.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 31, 2020, 05:55:17 PM
Quote
They wanted just a little recession to get Trump...

Who is "they"? You're ringing the TWS bell pretty strong today.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 31, 2020, 06:03:34 PM
Quote
They wanted just a little recession to get Trump, created a mass hysteria to drive it, and now are getting what pretty much looks like a depression. Great job, everyone. Just *censored*ing great.

Wow :(

I should have known the pandemic was created to get Trump. Very cleaver.
And we live to long, we should pass those right to die laws.... Screw the elderly and those with health problems.... That would put the religious right in a bind or maybe not. its all about the money, money, money
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Wayward Son on March 31, 2020, 06:04:48 PM
Quote
0.66% - yeah, that's not great but it's a hell of a lot lower than we've been told over and over and over. And it's the elderly that skew it that high. So that's what we're literally wrecking the economy over.

Yeah, that's only--what?--6.6 times higher death rate than the flu.  Why, if everyone got it, that's only a mere 2.6 million people.  Mass graves, like they're digging in Italy, can handle them easily.

We'd hardly notice it. *roll eyes*
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 31, 2020, 06:12:02 PM
Quote
The coronavirus may not be as deadly as previously suggested,
I suspect that this is true however the state of a countries healthcare system seems to have a huge impact on that number.
To calculate the number we need to define and state the variables - saying its may not be as deadly isn't saying anything.

The extreme right radio shock jocks are raising/creating some truly troubling value/moral/ethical questions on the value of life. Not that hard questions shouldn't be talked about it the manner is which they are doing so...

Talk radio is poison as in any extreme echo chamber
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on March 31, 2020, 06:23:09 PM
0.66% - yeah, that's not great but it's a hell of a lot lower than we've been told over and over and over. And it's the elderly that skew it that high. So that's what we're literally wrecking the economy over.

Actually .5-1% have been the assumed mortality as long as you have enough ventilators to treat all cases.  Mortality if the hospital is overwhelmed is 4% - since 80% of the 5% of infected patients that require a ventilator die if they don't get one.  We are trying to prevent the .5-1% instead being 4%.  So this isn't new information.  You simply didn't understand what was being said previously.

Of course we would also like to prevent even that 1% - a nationwide lockdown for at least two weeks to a month, followed by track and trace is probably required to do so at this point.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on March 31, 2020, 06:38:15 PM
Are all COVID-19 deaths being treated equally? Meaning, if someone dies of a separate condition while positive for Corona, is that being recorded as a COVID-19 death? I think in Italy this has been the case.

edit: meant "tracked" instead or treated
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 31, 2020, 07:08:08 PM
...The extreme right radio shock jocks are raising/creating some truly troubling value/moral/ethical questions on the value of life. Not that hard questions shouldn't be talked about it the manner is which they are doing so...

Talk radio is poison as in any extreme echo chamber

I wonder who you listen to. Alex Jones is often out there, but who else on the right is considered extreme? The Right is usually defined as anyone who doesn't meekly follow the "politically correct" assertions that are allowed to percolate through the airwaves without proper vetting. Say anything factual, and you get called a "denier." Drudge was once considered ultra right wing. He broke the story on Lewinski's blue dress. Now, he is considered a Never-Trumper, and although he only reposts stories from other sources, he always includes pejorative attacks on Trump, and his headlines are getting quite snarky.

It can't be Limbaugh. He is definitely no shock jock. He wins the "most polite radio personality" every year. Don Imus was proclaimed a "shock Jock" by Wikipedia and other PC sources, but he was usually quite centered philosophically and would just laugh-off callers who ranted and raved at him. His charitable work is largely unknown, but a huge and central part of his principles. Mark Levin is known for not allowing callers to lie on air. He will react to screamers by disconnecting them, but most callers who disagree with him normally leave the air voluntarily after being successfully rebutted. He is a very sane man.

On the other side, there are screamers. No one on the Right ever held up a fake Obama head dripping blood, or called for his assassination. If you want to talk about a screaming extremist, look no farther than Maxine Waters.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on March 31, 2020, 07:16:09 PM
Quote
I wonder who you listen to.

I don't. All political talk radio is poison, echo chambers of indoctrination.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 31, 2020, 07:20:25 PM
Quote
They wanted just a little recession to get Trump, created a mass hysteria to drive it, and now are getting what pretty much looks like a depression. Great job, everyone. Just *censored*ing great.

Wow :(

I should have known the pandemic was created to get Trump. Very cleaver.
And we live to long, we should pass those right to die laws.... Screw the elderly and those with health problems.... That would put the religious right in a bind or maybe not. its all about the money, money, money

That’s a complete mischaracterization of it but yeah, go with it. Feels righteous doesn’t it?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on March 31, 2020, 07:21:52 PM
Quote
0.66% - yeah, that's not great but it's a hell of a lot lower than we've been told over and over and over. And it's the elderly that skew it that high. So that's what we're literally wrecking the economy over.

Yeah, that's only--what?--6.6 times higher death rate than the flu.  Why, if everyone got it, that's only a mere 2.6 million people.  Mass graves, like they're digging in Italy, can handle them easily.

We'd hardly notice it. *roll eyes*

If everyone got it. You are part of the problem,you know that?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on March 31, 2020, 07:32:38 PM
Quote
They wanted just a little recession to get Trump, created a mass hysteria to drive it, and now are getting what pretty much looks like a depression. Great job, everyone. Just *censored*ing great.

Wow :(

I should have known the pandemic was created to get Trump. Very cleaver.
And we live to long, we should pass those right to die laws.... Screw the elderly and those with health problems.... That would put the religious right in a bind or maybe not. its all about the money, money, money

That’s a complete mischaracterization of it but yeah, go with it. Feels righteous doesn’t it?

Actually, that is a completely fair observation based on history. They did do that to elect Obama. The Dems did try to sabotage the economy and then blame it on the GOP. We still hear them claim Obama inherited a broken economy, fixed it, then handed off a beautiful growing economy to Trump. These "November Surprises" are pretty standard fare, aren't they? Remember Bush 43's economy was great until the Dems got the majority. The definition of "projection" is pretty much a Democrat plank.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Kasandra on March 31, 2020, 09:38:12 PM
The range of expected deaths from COVID-19 in the US is 80,000-240,000.  Even Trump is now on board with those numbers, and even admits that they could be conservative.  It's a little late, but he's finally beginning to face the grim reality.  The lower end assumes all 50 states implement strict stay-at-home protocols, and the higher end assumes that the 19 states that are not following them won't ever change their policy. 

16 out of those 19 states have Republican Governors.  The obvious question is, What is the matter with Republicans?  Perhaps the Ornery forum resident Republican conspiracy theorists can explain why they are doing the right thing and the other states have been duped.  Most of those 19 states also refused the ACA Medicaid expansions, which means in those states there will be a much higher incidence of people who have the disease who will not have the ability to pay for medical services that they will need.  That will probably mean that those states will have higher death rates from the virus than the states that took the Medicaid expansion. 

Perhaps our resident Republican conspiracy theorists can explain that and explain why this is all a hoax, that Obama is to blame, that the media and Democrats are trying to cause as many deaths as possible just to take down Trump, that Fauci is secretly coordinating with Hillary Clinton to create panic, that it's all due to TDS and that Trump has been on top of this from the very beginning.

I won't check back to see how they answer those questions, because I can't stand being on this forum with them any longer.  To the rest of you, be safe and stay well.  I'm sure you will take every precaution.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on March 31, 2020, 09:54:12 PM
I'm surprised the Media didn't run with a comment Trump made in the press conference on Sunday. I strongly suspect that was a bigger factor on Trump's turnaround on it.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-14/

Quote
But this is different.  And part of this is the unknown, and part of it also is the viciousness of it.  I had a friend who went to a hospital the other day.  He’s a little older, and he’s heavy, but he’s tough person.  And he went to the hospital, and a day later, he’s in a coma.  I call: “How’s he doing?”  “Sir, he’s in a coma.  He’s unconscious.”  He’s not doing well.

The speed and the viciousness, especially if it gets the right person, it’s horrible.  It’s really horrible.

It "hit home" for him this past weekend.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Wayward Son on April 01, 2020, 02:36:54 AM
Quote
If everyone got it. You are part of the problem, you know that?

How so?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 01, 2020, 08:21:36 AM
If everyone got it. You are part of the problem,you know that?

The disease is twice as contagious as the flu and has 6-10 times the number of severe cases and death rate. If we did nothing at least a 60%-70% infection rate would be expected. Which at that point overwhelms the health system and the death rate goes from 0.6% up to around 2-4%. Quit acting like the country is overreacting to this. The US waited too long to react, that's why we have more cases than anyone else in the world now.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 01, 2020, 08:43:09 AM
More than anyone else in the world. Right, China has almost none now. Do you really believe that?

How are we doing per capita? How’s the fatality rate? Again, comparing with China as though they’re being honest is just promoting their propaganda.

Quote
A recently posted op-ed by two professors — an associate professor of Mathematics at Carnegie Mellon University and an assistant professor of Molecular Biology at the University of Pittsburgh — calls for greater “honesty in pandemic modeling,” which, they suggest, too often conceals the fact that after lock-downs and other extreme social distancing measures are lifted, the number of infections will rapidly rise again.

Quote
There is a simple truth behind the problems with these modeling conclusions. The duration of containment efforts does not matter, if transmission rates return to normal when they end, and mortality rates have not improved. This is simply because as long as a large majority of the population remains uninfected, lifting containment measures will lead to an epidemic almost as large as would happen without having mitigations in place at all.

We’re not changing the epidemic at all. The best case scenario is a massive spike later than now. That’s it. What does it mean?
Quote
Two months of mitigations have not improved the outcome of the epidemic in this model, it has just delayed its terrible effects. In fact, because of the role of weather in the model presented in the Kristof article, two months of mitigations actually results in 50% more infections and deaths than two weeks of mitigations, since it pushes the peak of the epidemic to the winter instead of the summer, whose warmer months this model assumes causes lower transmission rates.

So we’ve actually made it worse. The final result:

Quote
“Unfortunately, extreme mitigation efforts which end (even gradually) reduce the number of deaths only by 1% or so;” they write, “as the mitigation efforts let up, we still see a full-scale epidemic, since almost none of the population has developed immunity to the virus.”

Only 1%. That’s what the models suggest we will accomplish with this. We are wrecking this economy and driving it into depression era conditions for 1%.

Destroying the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans and we get 1%.

Stop defending China and pushing their lies. You’re just promoting the destruction of America.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2020, 08:58:05 AM
Even if any of that were true, and I'm not going to dig up your reference, there would still be a difference between palliative care and sending people home to die alone - mass graves vs pepper arrangements. I suspect these two are a couple of crackpots. The peak doesn't get "pushed out" it gets flattened.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 01, 2020, 09:07:26 AM
In the short term it gets flattened.

But think it through. We lockdown until May 1. Is the virus eradicated? No. It’s still out there. Will we all suddenly get immune to it somehow? No. We won’t.

So we flatten the curve for 1 month then we all go back to business as usual and it will blow back up. We will still see the same spike, it just got pushed out.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on April 01, 2020, 09:08:31 AM
Quote
They wanted just a little recession to get Trump, created a mass hysteria to drive it, and now are getting what pretty much looks like a depression. Great job, everyone. Just *censored*ing great.

Wow :(

I should have known the pandemic was created to get Trump. Very cleaver.
And we live to long, we should pass those right to die laws.... Screw the elderly and those with health problems.... That would put the religious right in a bind or maybe not. its all about the money, money, money

That’s a complete mischaracterization of it but yeah, go with it. Feels righteous doesn’t it?

Love the smell of righteousness in the mourning smell like victory
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 01, 2020, 09:24:15 AM
Even if any of that were true, and I'm not going to dig up your reference, there would still be a difference between palliative care and sending people home to die alone - mass graves vs pepper arrangements. I suspect these two are a couple of crackpots. The peak doesn't get "pushed out" it gets flattened.

They aren't crack pots. They are modeling what happens if after 4-8 weeks we go back to life as normal. I think we need to accept we aren't getting back to full normal for a while. If we get the initial spike under control we're going to be slowly opening back up, maybe face masks for in public, still no mass gatherings, and test, track, and isolate cases and contacts. We're going to need that until next spring when we know which vaccine is safe and effective (hopefully one of the ones they are testing now is). Then we're going to need a huge public vaccination campaign. Based off the ease of spread of the virus we're going to need 90+% of the public vaccinated in order to really limit the spread of the disease. So think about what happens if schools, sporting events, churches, and restaurants are closed for a year instead of 2 months.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 01, 2020, 09:34:30 AM
I'll add - this is how Japan and South Korea have handled their outbreaks without shutting everything down. So its possible, but it does require some long term adjustments. We aren't going to be able to snuff the virus out, its spread too far around the world at this point. But there are actions we can take to have a more functioning society and have the virus spread managed until we have a vaccine and can return to normal.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 01, 2020, 09:45:04 AM
Quote
So we flatten the curve for 1 month then we all go back to business as usual and it will blow back up. We will still see the same spike, it just got pushed out.
If we were all to go back to "life as usual" after one month, then absolutely the virus would once again spike.

But rational people are not suggesting getting back to life as usual after one month. There will absolutely need to be ongoing changes to people's behaviours.

As well, we will need to have put in place in the near future testing and infection tracking protocols, protocols which have not been in place as yet; and there will need to be immediate access to testing, which had also not been the case previously.

So how different will the world look when we begin relaxing some of the social restrictions?
1. We will have a far larger pool of accessible COVID-19 ICU facilities, including ventilators.
2. Social distancing will still be the norm, although relaxed in certain ways from what we see today with the total lock down
3. Testing and tracking will be much more effective
4. There will still be regional COVID-19 flareups resulting in, again, implementing harsh lock-down procedures in the affected regions.
5. This will continue until effective vaccines are generally available and implemented.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 01, 2020, 09:47:48 AM
Only 1%. That’s what the models suggest we will accomplish with this. We are wrecking this economy and driving it into depression era conditions for 1%.

Destroying the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans and we get 1%.

Stop defending China and pushing their lies. You’re just promoting the destruction of America.

Is it your recommendation we give up on suppression and return to normal? Let the virus ravage through the country and deal with the massive amount of deaths and illness caused by that?

Knowing your posting style I'm guessing your going to say this isn't what you're for but will refuse to state what your position is.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 01, 2020, 09:57:52 AM
Only 1%. That’s what the models suggest we will accomplish with this. We are wrecking this economy and driving it into depression era conditions for 1%.

Destroying the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans and we get 1%.

Stop defending China and pushing their lies. You’re just promoting the destruction of America.

Is it your recommendation we give up on suppression and return to normal? Let the virus ravage through the country and deal with the massive amount of deaths and illness caused by that?

Knowing your posting style I'm guessing your going to say this isn't what you're for but will refuse to state what your position is.
Is it your recommendation we completely destroy the US economy to save 1%?

It is my recommendation we do not destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans to save 1000-2000 lives. That is a terrible calculus and each death is a tragic thing but that's what pandemics require.

The vast majority of deaths are in the elderly, those over 80, and in those with underlying medical conditions. Yes, some young people do not survive and some otherwise healthy people do not survive but those are outliers. There is a range of alternatives between do nothing and total lockdown.

I would say anyone that is healthy and under 50 (maybe 40) should be out and about, living their lives as normal. Trump pills should be pushed out in mass quantities - they are safe and the risks are well understood so there is no real harm in this and many governments are currently doing it. If you live with someone that is in the risk category, it should be up to the individual if they want to assume the risks of living their lives or staying quarantined.

There is no valid reason to have everyone in lockdown. We know that over the long term it will not make an impact.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2020, 10:41:32 AM
I'll add - this is how Japan and South Korea have handled their outbreaks without shutting everything down. So its possible, but it does require some long term adjustments. We aren't going to be able to snuff the virus out, its spread too far around the world at this point. But there are actions we can take to have a more functioning society and have the virus spread managed until we have a vaccine and can return to normal.

In South Korea, there are several things that are different.

Quote
South Korea has used data from surveillance cameras, cellphones and credit card transactions to map the social connections of suspected cases.

Ready for that in the US? They also have widely available testing. So they can find and quickly isolate outbreaks in a way that we can't.

Quote
The aggressive efforts by Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and South Korea to investigate and isolate every possible infection is exactly what the World Health Organization has been calling for since January.

The WHO's Maria Van Kerkhove acknowledged this week that for countries dealing with hundreds and even thousands of new cases every day, "finding every case" can be difficult.

Or we could Crunch it, and lose 500,000 people.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 01, 2020, 10:52:31 AM
Quote from: Crunch
Is it your recommendation we completely destroy the US economy to save 1%?

It is my recommendation we do not destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans to save 1000-2000 lives.
This math is not correct.

Also - hyperbole much?  The economy will not be "completely destroyed" nor will several months of austerity destroy the lives of millions, especially not if the government steps in with sufficient social assistance, and if society as a whole steps up.  An economic upheaval will also kill people, and harm many people.  The question is whether it will kill hundreds of thousands or a million of them, and will that be worse than "the cure"/

Maybe there is some way to balance suppression methods to their financial effects on people, and ways to mitigate those risks...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 01, 2020, 11:49:57 AM
In the short term it gets flattened.

But think it through. We lockdown until May 1. Is the virus eradicated? No. It’s still out there. Will we all suddenly get immune to it somehow? No. We won’t.

So we flatten the curve for 1 month then we all go back to business as usual and it will blow back up. We will still see the same spike, it just got pushed out.

Trump was already talking about June 1st in his Sunday press conference, and the tables that his task force members suggest their worst case scenario will be at its peak at the end of April, and nearing a trough at the end of May--which makes June 1 the more likely end date. May 1st is very aspirational, and also unlikely.

And most of the people talking about "flattening the curve" aren't talking about "business as usual" after the quarantine phase ends. Going back to "The hammer and the dance."

"The Hammer" is the (near) quarantine phase where we knock the virus back considerably in regards to how widely it has spread, as the hammer phase is trying to bring R down to near 0.

"The Dance" is where social distancing measures remain in place and they try to keep R as close to 1 as possible and find that level of transmission to be "acceptable" as the health system should be able to withstand that. It's the exponential growth curve that happens when it gets closer to an R of 2 that is to be avoided.

Part of the goal is that while we are in "The hammer" phase we get an effective testing regime in place as well as further bolster medical resources available for when we begin "the dance." Hopefully we also have identified effective treatment options by that point as well, which may allow for a R factor which is higher than 1.

This is going to be a roughly 18 month undertaking, short of a breakthrough medical cure, or P&G's vaccine working using existing methodologies which don't require very long medical trials because the process being used is new. If P&G's vaccine works, we'll largely be done with this by the end of the year... Barring a new mutation/strain breaking out that can ignore prior immunity.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2020, 11:56:41 AM
Crunch's reference from DailyWire.com (https://www.dailywire.com/news/professors-push-back-on-pandemic-models-be-honest-about-what-happens-after-lockdowns-are-lifted)

The actual article (https://medium.com/@wpegden/a-call-to-honesty-in-pandemic-modeling-5c156686a64b)

First, it is an op-ed and not an academic paper by the authors. So you can't really see their modeling methodology.

Quote
In the case of Kristof’s article, the epidemic model being employed is actually implemented in Javascript, and run — live — in a users web browser. This means that it is actually possible to hack their model to run past the end of October. In particular, we can look into the future, and see what happens in their model after October, assuming mitigations continue for 2 months. In particular, instead of the right-hand figure here:

That sounds reliable, hacking a black box model. Which probably doesn't account for greater availability of beds, ventilators, or anything else - because it wasn't designed to operate beyond its time frame. It also appears that they are assuming that after the two months it is a "back to unfettered" assumption - which might indeed pop a spike. That isn't what we're going to do.

Second, it should be noted that the authors are NOT advocating unlimited Crunchery, and they acknowledge value in mitigations:

Quote
This is not to say that there are not good reasons to use mitigations as a delay tactic. For example, we may hope to use the months we buy with containment measures to improve hospital capacity, in the hopes of achieving a reduction in the mortality rate. We might even wish to use these months just to consider our options as a society and formulate a strategy. But mitigations themselves are not saving lives in these scenarios; instead, it is what we do with the time that gives us an opportunity to improve the outcome of the epidemic.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 01, 2020, 12:04:42 PM
I would say anyone that is healthy and under 50 (maybe 40) should be out and about, living their lives as normal. Trump pills should be pushed out in mass quantities - they are safe and the risks are well understood so there is no real harm in this and many governments are currently doing it. If you live with someone that is in the risk category, it should be up to the individual if they want to assume the risks of living their lives or staying quarantined.

"Trump pills" are in shortage conditions at this point. Most countries are much smaller than some states in the US so they have an easier time accomplishing that. In the case of India, they're accomplishing this by commandeering their entire production chain for the drug--meaning they're not exporting it to the rest of the world right now, so other nations are now in shortage from that decision.

Current production is not up to the demand that such a measure would take. And in the interim, people who needed those medications to manage conditions they already have start having severe negative health-impacts from that choice.

Quote
There is no valid reason to have everyone in lockdown. We know that over the long term it will not make an impact.

There is every reason for people to be in lockdown right now, the supply system simply is not able to support what you propose to do. Not when it comes to providing the medications you propose to use, and not when it comes to the protective equipment the first responders desperately need.

You're asking for people to make a very bad choice. Our system is simply not prepared to handle what would happen if we did that. It might be in a better position a month from now, but I think they'll be barely catching up to the current pressures on it by then. Trying to catch up to the subsequent spike which would happen in a "resumption of normal activities" would not happen. You're not only killing the elderly, you're also killing a lot of medical professionals, law enforcement, EMTs, fire fighters, etc.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on April 01, 2020, 12:14:03 PM
Quote
It is my recommendation we do not destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans to save 1000-2000 lives. That is a terrible calculus and each death is a tragic thing but that's what pandemics require.

The vast majority of deaths are in the elderly, those over 80, and in those with underlying medical conditions. Yes, some young people do not survive and some otherwise healthy people do not survive but those are outliers. There is a range of alternatives between do nothing and total lockdown
.

I suspect when we look back on lessons learned we will find things we could have done better.
And that in future ways to keep people safe without triggering a economic recession.

The question you put forth though difficult to ask should be asked. Its true we don’t currently shut down economy or sacrifice our ‘freedom’ to save the lives of 1000 – 2000 lives. (or even larger numbers)  Begging the question how many lives safe would we make a economic sacrifice for? 

The issues I have with your argument is the math and that you didn’t need the second paragraph.  “The vast majority of deaths are in the elderly” Unnecessary assigning value to life, some people have greater value then others. Not that we don’t do this but to out right define these levels ethically troubling. Who decides? Do you remember the fears expressed against Obama Care of assigning such values… You don't the comment about the elderly such comment is distracting from the question you are concerned about.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 01, 2020, 12:52:03 PM
The question you put forth though difficult to ask should be asked. Its true we don’t currently shut down economy or sacrifice our ‘freedom’ to save the lives of 1000 – 2000 lives. (or even larger numbers)  Begging the question how many lives safe would we make a economic sacrifice for? 

I don't we're (society) capable of having serious discussions around this topic. Too fraught with moral and emotional reflex to truly consider pragmatism and logic. Ironically, it's because of the relatively low death rates we're looking at. If this was a truly cataclysmic event, those conversations become more realistic.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2020, 01:04:15 PM
Fighting COVID-19: the heterogeneous transmission thesis (https://www.math.cmu.edu/~wes/covid.html)

That's the deeper story with more information.

Quote
What we are not saying
Realizing that some readers may not digest all of this document before reaching conclusions, we would like in advance to dispel some possible misconceptions:

  • We are not arguing against mitigation efforts
  • We are not arguing that the economic costs of mitigation efforts outweigh their benefits
  • We are not saying that mitigation efforts can ignore the younger population
  • We are not saying that younger people won't die, and thus should be exempt from mitigations
  • We are not saying that mortalities among younger people should be traded for mortalities among older people
  • We are not predicting the future or making specific policy recommendations

So in other words, the authors don't seem to agree with the Crunchers out there.

And they acknowledge limitations

Quote
Sensitivity to medical system capacity and overcrowding cost
Our model of overcrowding cost is relatively simplistic. We simply assumed that above a hospital capacity of 500,000 (available for COVID-19 treatment), overcrowding doubles the mortality rate. Our model is not sensitive to these choices, however. In the first heatmap below, we see the response of our model if we assume unlimited hospital capacity, while in the second, we see the result if a threshold of 250,000 is used, and we assume that overcrowding quadruples hospital mortality rates.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 01, 2020, 01:07:12 PM
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/01/825205607/coast-guard-tells-cruise-ships-with-covid-19-cases-to-stay-away-from-u-s-ports (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/01/825205607/coast-guard-tells-cruise-ships-with-covid-19-cases-to-stay-away-from-u-s-ports)

Quote
The U.S. Coast Guard is telling foreign-flagged cruise ships to be prepared to care for people with COVID-19 for an "indefinite period of time" at sea or to seek help from countries other than the U.S., citing a health care system that is being overwhelmed. The instructions are in a new safety bulletin that took effect this week along the southern Atlantic coast, including Florida – which is reporting more than 6,700 coronavirus cases.

Several things here.
1) Why the f--- has anyone gotten on a cruise ship in the last 6 weeks?
2) Does the government not have the power to shut them down? I have to imagine they do, if so why haven't they used it?
3) Wow, just wow that we are potentially stranding american citizens on boats. I mean their idiots for getting on board anyway but not finding a way to close these boats down and get people off seems insane.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 01, 2020, 01:12:59 PM
The question you put forth though difficult to ask should be asked. Its true we don’t currently shut down economy or sacrifice our ‘freedom’ to save the lives of 1000 – 2000 lives. (or even larger numbers)  Begging the question how many lives safe would we make a economic sacrifice for? 

The issues I have with your argument is the math and that you didn’t need the second paragraph.  “The vast majority of deaths are in the elderly” Unnecessary assigning value to life, some people have greater value then others. Not that we don’t do this but to out right define these levels ethically troubling. Who decides? Do you remember the fears expressed against Obama Care of assigning such values… You don't the comment about the elderly such comment is distracting from the question you are concerned about.

There is a bit of a disconnect on that. Concerns about ObamaCare "Death panels" is different from a "do we sacrifice 25% of GDP for a quarter/year to save 1% of the population?" Type of situation.

The "Death Panels" operate outside of a crises scenario. Which is the more disturbing aspect with regards to them. More importantly, death panels can function on an individual basis in regards to determining who lives or dies.

While the proposition of just lifting the travel/activity restrictions and "let nature sort it out" rather than take the 25% hit to GDP is callous, it's also somewhat random. Either you need treatment or you don't. Either you're able to receive the care you need, or you enter a hospital that is performing a form of triage on who it treats, at which point a care provider decides in the context of triage if you get care or not, and even then some of that gets left to chance. The care provider may consign you to pallative/hospice care and you recover from the virus anyway.

While the death panel on the other hand isn't performing Triage in anything resembling the same context, and would rarely be involved in decisions involving "transitory" viral infections like covid19. Instead, they'd be making life and death decisions regarding treats where the only possible outcome without treatment is an earlier death without a crises looming over them.

Basically it comes down to the "Death panels" being more of cold and calculated decision to let a person die. While dropping the quarantine is "leaving it to chance." It is in a context where there is nobody saying "We've decided you are going to die" to specific random 20 year olds, even though it is clear that random and otherwise healthy 20 year olds are actually dying from this, albeit in very small numbers.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on April 01, 2020, 01:20:32 PM
Quote
Basically it comes down to the "Death panels" being more of cold and calculated decision to let a person die. While dropping the quarantine is "leaving it to chance."


If the health care system becomes overwhelmed are we not expecting the doctors to make those calculated decision. who gets the ventilator and who doesn't.  Not quite the same thing as a 'death panel'  perhaps but not a position or panel I would want to be on or put others on.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 01, 2020, 01:23:50 PM
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/01/825205607/coast-guard-tells-cruise-ships-with-covid-19-cases-to-stay-away-from-u-s-ports (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/01/825205607/coast-guard-tells-cruise-ships-with-covid-19-cases-to-stay-away-from-u-s-ports)

Quote
The U.S. Coast Guard is telling foreign-flagged cruise ships to be prepared to care for people with COVID-19 for an "indefinite period of time" at sea or to seek help from countries other than the U.S., citing a health care system that is being overwhelmed. The instructions are in a new safety bulletin that took effect this week along the southern Atlantic coast, including Florida – which is reporting more than 6,700 coronavirus cases.

Several things here.
1) Why the f--- has anyone gotten on a cruise ship in the last 6 weeks?
2) Does the government not have the power to shut them down? I have to imagine they do, if so why haven't they used it?
3) Wow, just wow that we are potentially stranding american citizens on boats. I mean their idiots for getting on board anyway but not finding a way to close these boats down and get people off seems insane.

1) I could understand people getting on one as recently as 4 weeks ago, depending on where they boarded, even if I wouldn't have done so myself. Fully agreed on anyone getting on a cruise ship since about the middle of the March.
2) Governments should have been shutting them down, but the issue on that front gets complicated due to companies being multinational, how/where the ships are flagged, and the multitude of jurisdictions they operate in. A shut down in the US doesn't stop operations in Mexico for example.
3) I imagine the US Navy and Coast Guard will start making arrangements for getting Americans off of those ships if it becomes clear the cruise company has exhausted its options. We probably will assist many of our allies in getting their people off as well. But those operations will likely be an "eventually" undertaking rather than an immediate thing. If only because we'd have to get assets to where the ships are. It just sucks for the passengers/crew who aren't from that presumably short list of nations we will help in the short term.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2020, 01:25:22 PM
Anybody looking for more information on the modeling discussion, it was the last post on the previous page.  :D
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: NobleHunter on April 01, 2020, 01:25:38 PM
Can something be only a little eugenicist?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 01, 2020, 01:26:53 PM
Quote
Basically it comes down to the "Death panels" being more of cold and calculated decision to let a person die. While dropping the quarantine is "leaving it to chance."


If the health care system becomes overwhelmed are we not expecting the doctors to make those calculated decision. who gets the ventilator and who doesn't.  Not quite the same thing as a 'death panel'  perhaps but not a position or panel I would want to be on or put others on.

It's the difference between murder and homicide. Death panels = murder, medical triage in a crises = a form of homicide.

One is pre-meditated, the other happens "in the moment." The Death Panel decides George isn't going to get treatment.

In this other case, "society" decides to allow a situation where George will be unable to get treatment, but doesn't know it will be George who will need it.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2020, 01:28:55 PM
Good god. Not death panels again. Is it murder if you give the "victim" their options to choose from? It had never been about blocking treatment unilaterally.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 01, 2020, 01:31:59 PM
Good god. Not death panels again. Is it murder if you give the "victim" their options to choose from? It had never been about blocking treatment unilaterally.

Correct enough, it just prevented the government from funding procedures the panel didn't approve. So as long as you could provide the $$$ to pay for it yourself, you're good to go, otherwise, too bad for you. Of course, they also had oversight over the insurance industry too, so if the panel doesn't approve the procedure, the insurance isn't necessarily obligated to pay either.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 01, 2020, 01:46:36 PM

The issues I have with your argument is the math and that you didn’t need the second paragraph.  “The vast majority of deaths are in the elderly” Unnecessary assigning value to life, some people have greater value then others. Not that we don’t do this but to out right define these levels ethically troubling. Who decides? Do you remember the fears expressed against Obama Care of assigning such values… You don't the comment about the elderly such comment is distracting from the question you are concerned about.

The primary reason you should have an issue with that is, that was not my point. It's a strawman you like, that's all. I am not in any way, shape, or form, assigning any value to the lives of the elderly. You just made that up.

I mention it only to make the point that it's that demographic we need to protect and quarantine, not healthy 20 somethings who will almost certainly shrug this off and survive it.

See the difference? You are fabricating that I'm saying let them die but I'm saying exactly the opposite.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 01, 2020, 01:49:44 PM
If we stay in this lockdown until May 1, I would be happy to have someone explain why:

Because at least one of those things must happen or the virus will simply restart its infections.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on April 01, 2020, 01:55:35 PM
Quote
The primary reason you should have an issue with that is, that was not my point. It's a strawman you like, that's all. I

It a strawman that was distracting from your point. Not one I liked. Your failure not mine.

Look again how your worded it, without any clarification that we needed to find a way to protect the elderly. With such a topic you can't assume everyone will understand what your "really saying"
This is the problem coming out of the noise from the more extreme voices. I cant remember which shock jock said it but his argument was that the elderly want to sacrifice their lives to save the economy - it was really ugly conversation.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2020, 01:57:39 PM
Good god. Not death panels again. Is it murder if you give the "victim" their options to choose from? It had never been about blocking treatment unilaterally.

Correct enough, it just prevented the government from funding procedures the panel didn't approve. So as long as you could provide the $$$ to pay for it yourself, you're good to go, otherwise, too bad for you. Of course, they also had oversight over the insurance industry too, so if the panel doesn't approve the procedure, the insurance isn't necessarily obligated to pay either.

Also not true.

death panel myth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel)

Quote
Section 1233 of bill HR 3200 which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary counseling to Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options.

No part of 1233 would have denied any procedure or payment.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 01, 2020, 04:27:11 PM
If we stay in this lockdown until May 1, I would be happy to have someone explain why:
  • The virus is gone
  • How we all suddenly became immune

Because at least one of those things must happen or the virus will simply restart its infections.

The lockdown(quarantine) ends, social distancing does not, and will not. Large gathering will likely continue to be restricted for months to come.

Until the exponential growth curve which has happened as a result of "20 year olds who can shrug this off"(but can't in reality based on Hospital admittance rates) can be brought under control, we NEED to lock down.

Then we need to remain there until hospital loading starts moving back into a more sane range, and also ensure they're no longer in a supply shortage. More particularly, we need to make sure testing supplies are in abundant supply so that contact tracing can be done quickly and efficiently.

Once those preconditions are met, we can ease up on the restrictions, but need to be prepared to "pump the brakes" again, but this time hopefully only in small defined areas, as the need arises. Rather than everywhere/whole states.

You will not going back to "business as usual" once the lockdown ends, there will be a number of restrictions in place, and they'll remain for the currently foreseeable future. It isn't that the virus is gone, or that everyone is immune. It's that the situation is under better control, and the system has capacity to deal with where it flares up because they're catching it before the geometric increase gets out of hand.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on April 01, 2020, 08:53:08 PM
...It isn't that the virus is gone, or that everyone is immune. It's that the situation is under better control, and the system has capacity to deal with where it flares up because they're catching it before the geometric increase gets out of hand.

Maybe we will have respite when the normal flu season ends, and sunshine helps to attenuate the virus.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 01, 2020, 08:57:14 PM
...It isn't that the virus is gone, or that everyone is immune. It's that the situation is under better control, and the system has capacity to deal with where it flares up because they're catching it before the geometric increase gets out of hand.

Maybe we will have respite when the normal flu season ends, and sunshine helps to attenuate the virus.

Hasn’t worked so well in Iran or Florida. This virus seems more heat resistant than flu or maybe its just that much more contagious that even diminished it still has an R near 2.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 07:46:12 AM
If we stay in this lockdown until May 1, I would be happy to have someone explain why:
  • The virus is gone
  • How we all suddenly became immune

Because at least one of those things must happen or the virus will simply restart its infections.

The lockdown(quarantine) ends, social distancing does not, and will not. Large gathering will likely continue to be restricted for months to come.

Until the exponential growth curve which has happened as a result of "20 year olds who can shrug this off"(but can't in reality based on Hospital admittance rates) can be brought under control, we NEED to lock down.

Then we need to remain there until hospital loading starts moving back into a more sane range, and also ensure they're no longer in a supply shortage. More particularly, we need to make sure testing supplies are in abundant supply so that contact tracing can be done quickly and efficiently.

Once those preconditions are met, we can ease up on the restrictions, but need to be prepared to "pump the brakes" again, but this time hopefully only in small defined areas, as the need arises. Rather than everywhere/whole states.

You will not going back to "business as usual" once the lockdown ends, there will be a number of restrictions in place, and they'll remain for the currently foreseeable future. It isn't that the virus is gone, or that everyone is immune. It's that the situation is under better control, and the system has capacity to deal with where it flares up because they're catching it before the geometric increase gets out of hand.

This is fantasy. It will not work.

You’re saying that for the foreseeable future that any type of nightlife, concerts or events, restaurants, etc will not be allowed to operate normally if they’re allowed at all. Schools, closed. Sport events, gone. No more movie theaters. Weddings, birthday parties, all social gatherings, forced to end. Churches, not allowed. The list goes on and on.

For the foreseeable future. Does anyone really think they can enforce this? Are police going to go around arresting anyone who invites more than 10 people to their homes? You gonna outlaw going to church ever again? Prevent people traveling?

People will not do this. Arresting people for exercising constitutional rights will not be tolerated. Not for “the foreseeable future “. You’ve got this window of fear where it works but that window is already closing.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 08:09:47 AM
I once made the point that this was an unforced error that would come back to haunt in campaign ads. Here we start ...

Quote
On February 4, President Trump delivered his State of the Union Address, during which he addressed the threat to America from the coronavirus, asserting, “Protecting Americans’ health also means fighting infectious diseases. We are coordinating with the Chinese government and working closely together on the coronavirus outbreak in China. My administration will take all necessary steps to safeguard our citizens from this threat.”

While Trump was addressing problems facing the nation, House Speaker was fuming; as soon as Trump finished speaking she tore the printed copy of the speech up. Later, when she was asked why she did so, considering she had admonished Democrats to act with dignity, she snapped, “I tore up a manifesto of mistruths.” Gesturing to reporters, she continued, “It’s very hard for us to get you to talk about the issues that we are working on … it was necessary to get the attention of the American people to say. ‘This is not true.’ … I don’t need any lessons from anybody, especially the President of the United States, about dignity.”

That ad will be devastating.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 02, 2020, 08:55:25 AM
This is fantasy. It will not work.

You’re saying that for the foreseeable future that any type of nightlife, concerts or events, restaurants, etc will not be allowed to operate normally if they’re allowed at all. Schools, closed. Sport events, gone. No more movie theaters. Weddings, birthday parties, all social gatherings, forced to end. Churches, not allowed. The list goes on and on.

For the foreseeable future. Does anyone really think they can enforce this? Are police going to go around arresting anyone who invites more than 10 people to their homes? You gonna outlaw going to church ever again? Prevent people traveling?

People will not do this. Arresting people for exercising constitutional rights will not be tolerated. Not for “the foreseeable future “. You’ve got this window of fear where it works but that window is already closing.

Things will relax somewhat after the initial outbreak is contained. But its spread too far around the world, has too many asymptomatic carriers, and too long an incubation period to ever have it completely out of circulation before mass vaccinations. But with better testing, contact tracing, public distancing, we'll be able to manage the spread. But mass gatherings are going to be out, small gatherings with friends will resume, but when choir practice (where people were trying to be careful) leads to 45 out of 60 people getting sick and multiple deaths I think your assumptions about life returning to normal or people just saying lets all go get sick so we can resume life is a little premature.

We are going to have to make adjustments for the next year. The alternative is a couple million deaths in the USA.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 02, 2020, 09:09:34 AM
The window of fear will reopen quickly if another, equivalently serious outbreak occurs 2 months after relaxing restrictions.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Fenring on April 02, 2020, 09:45:00 AM
We are going to have to make adjustments for the next year. The alternative is a couple million deaths in the USA.

Serious question: is this really so bad, compared to the possible alternative? I know the 'common wisdom' at the moment is that it's evil to even ask this, but how do you measure the potential elimination of the life savings or entire business viability of many more millions than this? It's often asked, in medical issues, how do you put a price tag on life; this is typically asked when there is a life to save and people are thinking they maybe don't merit free care (cancer treatment, etc). In this scenario it's similar but opposite, where the at-risk people are actually getting the preferential treatment, and the communal cost is being incurred. But ironically the question is still relevant: how much destruction is ok? I ask this in relation to the above quote because I think so far the "to prevent a couple million deaths" seems to be assumed to be the unthinkable, must-prevent result. But, as grim as it sounds, why should we assume that a couple million deaths is in fact the worst result? What if it's the best?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 10:00:06 AM
Until the exponential growth curve which has happened as a result of "20 year olds who can shrug this off"(but can't in reality based on Hospital admittance rates) ...

Just to keep it in reality, the fatality rate for under 30 is currently at 0.2% globally. So, in reality, the 20 and under crowd to actually can shrug this off.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 10:01:45 AM
The alternative is a couple million deaths in the USA.

That's not even remotely true
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 02, 2020, 10:05:41 AM
2 million deaths is one end of the spectrum of worst results - it is the "do nothing" result.

At the other end of the spectrum is the "do everything possible, whatever the cost" scenario, where we spend every single penny of liquidity and every aspect of the economy is focused exclusively on saving each life.

Then there is everything in between.

At each end, you run into the law of diminishing returns (although it is slightly more complicated than that).

But certain things are no-brainers - invest in the manufacture and distribution of ventilators, and the creation of ICU beds, with investment in manpower.  Immediate costs associated, but the benefits will be huge for the cost.

Temporary isolation measures while we ramp up production and distribution - immediate costs, but also huge immediate benefits in initial mortality.

Ongoing isolation - more limited costs than initial complete isolation measures.

And so on.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 02, 2020, 10:06:27 AM
Until the exponential growth curve which has happened as a result of "20 year olds who can shrug this off"(but can't in reality based on Hospital admittance rates) ...

Just to keep it in reality, the fatality rate for under 30 is currently at 0.2% globally. So, in reality, the 20 and under crowd to actually can shrug this off.

2 in a 1000 people under 30 die. I don't exactly call that shrugging it off.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 10:16:00 AM
What do you call it then? Put your fear-mongering in a little perspective. What's the limit? 0.1%? 0.0%?

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: oldbrian on April 02, 2020, 10:18:47 AM
Quote
2 in a 1000 people under 30 die. I don't exactly call that shrugging it off.

Also, if they end up in the hospital, taking up space and resources.  That is not what people mean by 'shrug it off'

I guess the question is - what does Crunch mean when he say 'shrug it off'?

Also, I always thought that the easing of the quarantine would occur when we had enough new supplies and treatments to handle the expected spike, not when everyone in the world is vaccinated.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 10:20:32 AM
Quote
2 in a 1000 people under 30 die. I don't exactly call that shrugging it off.

Also, if they end up in the hospital, taking up space and resources.  That is not what people mean by 'shrug it off'

I guess the question is - what does Crunch mean when he say 'shrug it off'?

Also, I always thought that the easing of the quarantine would occur when we had enough new supplies and treatments to handle the expected spike, not when everyone in the world is vaccinated.

I mean that they mostly survive it. That seems so obvious but the pedantic really come out when they're threatened.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 10:22:26 AM
In just the last two weeks, 10 million people lost their jobs—they lost their ability to feed and take care of their families—because fear and hysteria made it illegal for them to work.

A $1200 check is nothing. How many more people's lives do you guys think we should destroy? You're all throwing out numbers, throw some out there. 20% unemployment, will that satisfy you? Higher? Maybe 40%?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: NobleHunter on April 02, 2020, 10:29:09 AM
How many people should die to keep the economy going? Throw some numbers out there. 100,000? 200,000? Would that satisfy you?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on April 02, 2020, 10:30:01 AM
Quote
In just the last two weeks, 10 million people lost their jobs—they lost their ability to feed and take care of their families—because fear and hysteria made it illegal for them to work.

its a valid question - just asked really badly

This is not a political issue, not a partisan one anyway

How do we keep the vulnerable safe, protect our health care workers and keep people employed and buying
How do we get people back to work as soon as possible?
Is their a tipping point between health and economy? What is it

The above is some of what I wish we could talk about without getting into the blame game or conspiracy theories which isn't helpful.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 02, 2020, 10:38:58 AM
Some perspective - governments are stepping in to soften those blows.

In Canada, there are a number of programs available immediately:
And of course, these layoffs (though not all, granted - some businesses will fail) are expected to be temporary - but these programs will absolutely help get most people through the situation with less pain than simply being tossed to the curb without benefits.

So using the hyperbolic term "destroy" is more than a little irresponsible.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: oldbrian on April 02, 2020, 10:40:09 AM
it is always a sliding scale.
Absolutely no-one sane is saying 'do nothing, let nature take its course.  We will come through stronger than ever'
Absolutely no-one sane is saying 'shut down everything, devote the entire resourses of the country to each case as it comes up'

Yet those are the stances that people are throwing at each other during the argument.  Who was the (libertarian) member a few years ago that kept going on about how there was only a 1% difference between the Republicans and the Democrats?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 02, 2020, 10:42:17 AM
In just the last two weeks, 10 million people lost their jobs—they lost their ability to feed and take care of their families—because fear and hysteria made it illegal for them to work.

A $1200 check is nothing. How many more people's lives do you guys think we should destroy? You're all throwing out numbers, throw some out there. 20% unemployment, will that satisfy you? Higher? Maybe 40%?

How about a UBI or just enhanced unemployment benefits for the duration? Many people are unemployed but should be able to hunker down, pay their rent and ride it out. The most restrictive measures only need to be in place a couple months. After that we can go to the South Korea/Japan containment strategy. Unemployment is going to be high, but it beats the hell out of mass graves. Because the worst effects of unemployment can literally be ameliorated by the government writing big enough checks, last time I checked the government couldn't bring people back to life.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 02, 2020, 10:45:26 AM
What do you call it then? Put your fear-mongering in a little perspective. What's the limit? 0.1%? 0.0%?

I can shrug off a cold maybe even a regular flu. Shrugging off would imply little to no impact. But the result among the 20-40 cohort is a number (2-10%) of really serious cases that require lengthy hospitalizations.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Fenring on April 02, 2020, 10:48:06 AM
How many people should die to keep the economy going? Throw some numbers out there. 100,000? 200,000? Would that satisfy you?

You've missed the point, I think. In a funny way your argument sounds like Stalinist communism, insofar as the suggested solution in order to protect the weak is to decimate everyone else. Except, of course, the elite, who will always be safe regardless. I'm not saying this is your actual ethos, but rather the end-state conclusion of what seems to be your premise. That's why I asked my question above.

Throwing out scary-sounding numbers, essentially citing harm needed to prevent, is not in and of itself justification for anything. The phrase itself "keep the economy going" sounds like you're equating economy with 'it's just money' and not the important thing. Except an economy is actually an accounting of human effort and social debt. To the extent that I believe that the monetary system breaks terribly with the notion of "human effort" (i.e. the most money made probably is not a result of human effort but rather of leveraging wealth) I agree with having a sort of disdain for it, but on the other hand it still does represent the work done by everyone other than the mega-wealthy as well. Allowing the economy to tank is equivalent to saying a few things:

-All the work people did before, done with the promise of social debt (i.e. savings) was a lie and they were retroactively enslaved for no remuneration.
-That the survival of businesses isn't at all linked to actual human survival.
-That the elderly and weak will be better off with an impoverished government and a weak business culture.

This isn't just an issue of humane vs merciless; it's a legit trolley problem where the current strategies may actually turn out to be the equivalent of sacrificing some to save others. How do you know, or calculate, how many are sacrifice, and how many were saved as a result? What if this goes beyond 2008 and there's a domino effect of bankruptcies that sends America into free-fall?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Fenring on April 02, 2020, 10:52:27 AM
How about a UBI or just enhanced unemployment benefits for the duration? Many people are unemployed but should be able to hunker down, pay their rent and ride it out. The most restrictive measures only need to be in place a couple months. After that we can go to the South Korea/Japan containment strategy. Unemployment is going to be high, but it beats the hell out of mass graves. Because the worst effects of unemployment can literally be ameliorated by the government writing big enough checks, last time I checked the government couldn't bring people back to life.

If there was a guarantee that it was for a month or two I might agree. And I'm all for a UBI so I do hope this gains traction for it. *However* a UBI can only function in one of two cases: (1) Everyone is working as normal, (2) the entire monetary system is revamped. (2) will not happen yet, so (1) must happen for the government to be able to afford it. Cut off the ability to work and even a short-term UBI may be unaffordable. Currently many countries are in a real lockdown, where all non-essential business (food and medical) are closed by law. If that persists for more than the *very* short-term there will be no more cash to keep it all going and there will be a calamity.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: NobleHunter on April 02, 2020, 10:54:47 AM
You've missed the point, I think. In a funny way your argument sounds like Stalinist communism, insofar as the suggested solution in order to protect the weak is to decimate everyone else. Except, of course, the elite, who will always be safe regardless. I'm not saying this is your actual ethos, but rather the end-state conclusion of what seems to be your premise. That's why I asked my question above.

Throwing out scary-sounding numbers, essentially citing harm needed to prevent, is not in and of itself justification for anything. The phrase itself "keep the economy going" sounds like you're equating economy with 'it's just money' and not the important thing. Except an economy is actually an accounting of human effort and social debt. To the extent that I believe that the monetary system breaks terribly with the notion of "human effort" (i.e. the most money made probably is not a result of human effort but rather of leveraging wealth) I agree with having a sort of disdain for it, but on the other hand it still does represent the work done by everyone other than the mega-wealthy as well. Allowing the economy to tank is equivalent to saying a few things:

-All the work people did before, done with the promise of social debt (i.e. savings) was a lie and they were retroactively enslaved for no remuneration.
-That the survival of businesses isn't at all linked to actual human survival.
-That the elderly and weak will be better off with an impoverished government and a weak business culture.

This isn't just an issue of humane vs merciless; it's a legit trolley problem where the current strategies may actually turn out to be the equivalent of sacrificing some to save others. How do you know, or calculate, how many are sacrifice, and how many were saved as a result? What if this goes beyond 2008 and there's a domino effect of bankruptcies that sends America into free-fall?

You missed the point, read the post above mine.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Fenring on April 02, 2020, 11:02:06 AM
You missed the point, read the post above mine.

Oh? The post above yours was this:

Quote
In just the last two weeks, 10 million people lost their jobs—they lost their ability to feed and take care of their families—because fear and hysteria made it illegal for them to work.

A $1200 check is nothing. How many more people's lives do you guys think we should destroy? You're all throwing out numbers, throw some out there. 20% unemployment, will that satisfy you? Higher? Maybe 40%?

Your response to the issue of 10 million losing their job was to ask how many need to die to keep the economy going. Not sure what you thought I failed to understand here, as I think my reply to you was on-point with the topic of lives for lives. What point is it you think I missed?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 11:21:16 AM
Many people are unemployed but should be able to hunker down, pay their rent and ride it out.

This is so out of touch. 57% of U.S. adults have less than $1,000 to their names. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/budget-and-spending/2018/05/22/what-average-american-needs-in-emergency-savings/35175419/) Most people are not going to just "ride it out" with the income disruption you're calling for.


The most restrictive measures only need to be in place a couple months. After that we can go to the South Korea/Japan containment strategy. Unemployment is going to be high, but it beats the hell out of mass graves. Because the worst effects of unemployment can literally be ameliorated by the government writing big enough checks, last time I checked the government couldn't bring people back to life.

Under the most restrictive measures, a couple of months from now, the country will be gone.  The hysteria you're pushing is so misguided and dangerous it's incredible. Do you truly have no idea of the impact of this? Can you be that out of touch?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 02, 2020, 11:28:54 AM
Can confirm, I have a 4 unit rental property and every single tenant has decided not to pay their rent, regardless of stimulus checks.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: NobleHunter on April 02, 2020, 11:30:24 AM
Have they gotten the stimulus checks yet? Might have something to do with why they aren't paying rent.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 02, 2020, 11:31:02 AM
I don't know. I know that at least 3 of them are still employed.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 02, 2020, 11:32:06 AM
Their rent is also more than the stimulus check. So if I was unemployed, I wouldn't pay my rent either. Stimulus check or not.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Fenring on April 02, 2020, 11:37:58 AM
Can confirm, I have a 4 unit rental property and every single tenant has decided not to pay their rent, regardless of stimulus checks.

In Canada all banks are offering mortgage deferrals for landlords with non-paying tenants, which in plain terms means you can do up to six skip payments in a row. This means no principle payment but the monthly interest still gets tacked onto your tab, so you are effectively refinancing on the mortgage. Also, to my knowledge regular taxes (municipal, etc) have not in any way been stopped. So if a landlord is receiving zero rent he is still bleeding money, just not quite as much. For those who are overextended (due to recent expansion or just tight finances) we could be seeing a mortgage market crisis if this goes on for long.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 02, 2020, 11:39:15 AM
I've heard of a similar thing in the US and looking into it.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 02, 2020, 11:40:27 AM
Regarding the larger un-answerable question of acceptable mortality: Beyond the moral issues, the challenge is having an intelligent conversation of acceptable mortality while factoring in dissimilar features (ie transmissibility).

We seem to have collectively decided that in order to prevent a speculative maximum of 2M deaths (which based on how the numbers have moved no longer seems a realistic worst-case) we are willing to shut down our economic engine and core societal functions, largely as a result of the particular disease's transmissibility.

Transmissibility factors aside, we have also collectively decided *not* to disrupt or massively redirect our economy to mitigate an unrelated disease (heart disease) that kills 25% of all humans in the US.

Again - it's not transmissible - but the fact remains we've decided not to direct the same kind of attention towards a persistent, recurrent disease that is killing Americans at the rate of one every 37 seconds (https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm). These deaths will also not go lower in the next year or two because of herd immunity.

While the mortality characteristics are dissimilar, I think it's reasonable to look at the net results as some kind of baseline to how much we're willing to sacrifice. What's left unexamined here are annual death rates of COVID-19 after the initial wave(s).

So, my out-of-my-butt baseline seems to be an annual death rate around 650K without needing to redirect society's entire attention to it. I fully expect someone smarter than me will be able to poke a hole in this and I'm open to that.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 02, 2020, 12:21:27 PM
Under the most restrictive measures, a couple of months from now, the country will be gone.

Now who's pushing fear and hysteria. The COUNTRY WILL BE GONE if we take a two month European style stay at home vacation. 10 million jobs have been lost, probably another 10 million to go. After that we're hitting the group that can work from home, are considered essential, or otherwise unimpacted. And yes I understand that puts unemployment at great depression levels, however, if we increase unemployment insurance payments and put into place other stimulus and mitigation measures (i.e. debt/rent deferment) we can ride out the worst part of the storm and have a reasonably healthy economic recovery. Instead of Uber, gig workers can instacart, grocery stores are hiring, amazon is hiring, and I'm sure there are others.

I agree we can't stay on full shut down/lock down for the full year. But we can make it two months, use that time to get capacity in the medical system, get rapid testing set up*, and make a plan to have a functioning society with increased support for the industries/employees that are still going to be suffering. Once the outbreak is tamped down, it can be controlled with better testing and targeted shut downs. Do you really believe this isn't something we're capable of implementing within in the one more month of basic shut down its going to take to get the numbers down to a manageable level. I think face masks are going to become common in the US. Large indoor gatherings are out, cruises are out, airline travel needs to be extremely limited, but for the most part the rest of society can slowly start reopening with some more crowd control measures.

I've put forth what I think the plan forward is. Other than you think the cost is too high I'm not sure what your plan is.  Is is just telling old people to hide in bunkers while the disease rips through the rest of the country? Do you think other mitigation efforts are reasonable?

*I forget which company just created the test that can be run on the same machines that flu and strep are run on that many local doctors already have.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on April 02, 2020, 12:21:41 PM
Quote
Under the most restrictive measures, a couple of months from now, the country will be gone.  The hysteria you're pushing is so misguided and dangerous it's incredible. Do you truly have no idea of the impact of this? Can you be that out of touch?

What solution's are your purposing?
Its easy to point out the worst case scenarios but its not helping

How do we keep people healthy and keep the economy working? I'm not being sarcastic or anything.

I personally suspect the way we are measuring things with the virus is misleading and that their are other ways we could be dealing with this. If we could just talk about it without all the hyperbole and nonsense.
I suspect the better ways to deal with such things won't we known until after the dust has settled.

I doubt very much that there is anyone on this site, or anywhere, that does not want this to end as quickly as possible with as little damage as possible.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: fizz on April 02, 2020, 12:38:33 PM
Istat, the Italian government statistical department, made a study about total deaths in the first three weeks of the month of March, compared to the same period in the previous five years, with the intent of studying the general increase in mortality due to the virus, including unrecognized victims of the virus, and people that died for other causes but that would have been saved if the healthcare system had not nearly collapsed due to the pandemic.

I'm sorry, the document (https://www.istat.it/it/files//2020/03/Decessi_2020_Nota.pdf) is in Italian, but summing up, the average deaths during March have been at least double the precedent 5 years average, and in the most struck area it reached 4 times the average number of deaths.

https://twitter.com/bdeguglielmo/status/1245411918828863488

Even if data is still too incomplete to calculate the proper increment in general mortality, this means that the official number of recognized deaths is quite smaller than the total amount of deaths caused by the pandemic, likely at least double the official number and maybe even more (in some towns in the disaster zone they are talking about even ten times higher).





Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 02, 2020, 12:53:09 PM
Overrunning our healthcare system is one of the main reasons for over-caution. Agreed?


The current IMHE models being referenced (and used by the whitehouse, IIR) seem to have been grossly inaccurate in this area. You can check them out for yourself (links below) but here are some example data as of yesterday:

The IMHE model predicted that on April 1st:

1,716 people in Texas will have been hospitalized due to virus. Actual: 196
2777 people in Georgia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 952
2214 people in Tennesee will have been hospitalized. Actual : 200
607 people in Virginia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 305

50,962 people in NY would have been hospitalized. Actual : 18,368


Projection data:
covid19.healthdata.org/projections
Hospitalization data:
covidtracking.com/data/

This is the problem with models. Yes, they get updated but if we're going to make massive decisions we should be doing so on models that approximate reality.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 02, 2020, 01:18:01 PM
More color:

Oregon has been very transparent in their data/stats (link below):

They're now literally saying that, based on the data, there would be NO crisis if the lockdown was fully lifted.

By early May, all of Oregon would have ~90 people in ICU beds if all businesses reopened, as opposed to ~30 if the lockdown continued.

To put this in direct terms: Oregon - a state of 4.2 million people - has shut down in order to, by ITS OWN PROJECTIONS, keep an average of two extra people a day from needing intensive care this month.

https://govsite-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/8arHLJI7QrqywZlmFH1X_Oregon-COVID-19-Projections-2020-03-30.pdf

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 02, 2020, 01:22:07 PM
Interestingly, the page has modeled fewer deaths as of yesterday than have been reported... the opposite as for reported hospitalization.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 02, 2020, 01:41:01 PM
Overrunning our healthcare system is one of the main reasons for over-caution. Agreed?

Agreed.

Quote
The current IMHE models being referenced (and used by the whitehouse, IIR) seem to have been grossly inaccurate in this area. You can check them out for yourself (links below) but here are some example data as of yesterday:

The IMHE model predicted that on April 1st:

1,716 people in Texas will have been hospitalized due to virus. Actual: 196
2777 people in Georgia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 952
2214 people in Tennesee will have been hospitalized. Actual : 200
607 people in Virginia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 305

50,962 people in NY would have been hospitalized. Actual : 18,368

Projection data:
covid19.healthdata.org/projections
Hospitalization data:
covidtracking.com/data/

Okay - just curious as to when the model was run and what date it started at. It looks like they didn't update their hospital usage/resource data as they have their number of deaths data. Honestly based on how they graph things it looks like they haven't put any real world data into the hospital usage after their first run. Compare that chart (all smooth curves with smooth error bounds throughout) to the graph of deaths per day that has the real world data up through April 1 (and they removed the predicted lines and upper and lower error bounds) up through that date. Either they don't accurate data to track this or they aren't updating this model like they are the others.

Quote
This is the problem with models. Yes, they get updated but if we're going to make massive decisions we should be doing so on models that approximate reality.

The government should have their own experts to run these models, updating the data as needed. Nothing against the researchers at UW but as a math nerd I was a little disappointed that I couldn't find what type of modeling they were using. Closest I found was a statement that they used data from the rest of the world to build a model and then applied it to the US. All kinds of potential confounding variables there. On the whole I expect it would largely reflect reality but seriously I'm pretty damn sure if I spent two weeks on it I could build a better working model.

I want the epidemiologists to be using more sophisticated techniques than I would but it doesn't appear on its face that they are. I don't know why the CDC or NIH or one of those government agencies doesn't have a working combined SIR/agent based model of the US (or the whole world for that matter) up and running. The model should have already existed then you put in the covid 19 parameters to get the best estimates in the world. The US is probably too big to go full agent based model but you could break the country up into small chunks (~50,000 people) use SIR on those small relatively homogeneous groups* and model the connections between those groups to see how the virus is likely to spread. The type of model I'm talking about could tell you that if you see an outbreak in London - maybe you need to shut down NY because of all of the international travel between those places. But you wouldn't need to shut down Omaha if you shut down NY before the outbreak is even detected there.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 02, 2020, 01:43:35 PM
I didn't delve deep, but I find it suspicious that the loosest measure has a linear curve on infections and beds.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 02, 2020, 01:45:42 PM
It looks like the model was run March 25th, so a week ago.

Drake: I find a lot of this suspicious.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 02, 2020, 01:51:02 PM
More color:

Oregon has been very transparent in their data/stats (link below):

They're now literally saying that, based on the data, there would be NO crisis if the lockdown was fully lifted.

By early May, all of Oregon would have ~90 people in ICU beds if all businesses reopened, as opposed to ~30 if the lockdown continued.

To put this in direct terms: Oregon - a state of 4.2 million people - has shut down in order to, by ITS OWN PROJECTIONS, keep an average of two extra people a day from needing intensive care this month.

https://govsite-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/8arHLJI7QrqywZlmFH1X_Oregon-COVID-19-Projections-2020-03-30.pdf

I like the data link and you are correct about the difference in what happens this month, the issue in Oregon and other places would be what happens in June. Reopen today you double the number of cases in 1 month, that doubling rate will decrease, go from months to weeks to days, and as the virus spreads and by July you are in trouble. By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

*By reasonably here I'm including measures I've advocated elsewhere here on how to keep the virus under control as society reopens. We need to use this time to put into place ways to keep the virus from having big outbreaks while society goes back to a more normal form of functioning.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 01:58:32 PM
Quote
... last week, Whitmer’s administration threatened physicians prescribing the drugs, saying they were subject to “administrative action” should they continue to use the medication.

“The Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs has received multiple allegations of Michigan physicians inappropriately prescribing hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to themselves, family, friends, and/or coworkers without a legitimate medical purpose,” Deb Gagliardi, the director of the Bureau of Professional Licensing, and Forrest Pasanski, the director of the Enforcement Division, wrote in a letter to “licensed prescribers and dispensers.”

“Prescribing hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine without further proof of efficacy for treating COVID-19 or with the intent to stockpile the drug may create a shortage” for those patients who need the drug for its approved use, adding that “reports of this conduct will be evaluated and may be further investigated for administrative action.

“Again, these drugs have not been proven scientifically or medically to treat COVID-19.”

“Michigan pharmacists may see an increased volume of prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and should take special care to evaluate the prescriptions’ legitimacy,” they continued, warning again that “licensed health professionals are required to report inappropriate prescribing practices.”

What a difference a week makes:

Quote
Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s administration has requested an emergency supply of the drugs President Trump touted as having success treating patients with severe symptoms of the novel coronavirus, in a reversal from the state's directive to medical professionals last week to avoid the medication for this purpose.

Michigan, this week, requested hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine from the Strategic National Stockpile for physicians to use to help treat patients with COVID-19, after the Food and Drug Administration over the weekend granted an emergency use authorization for the anti-malarial drugs.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 02:00:30 PM
By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 02, 2020, 02:02:38 PM
By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

Do us all a favor, run around town licking doorknobs and rubbing faces with other idiots so we don't have to hear your callous disregard for hundreds of thousands of lives any more.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 02, 2020, 02:03:19 PM
Overrunning our healthcare system is one of the main reasons for over-caution. Agreed?


The current IMHE models being referenced (and used by the whitehouse, IIR) seem to have been grossly inaccurate in this area.

"If you don't implement measures X,Y,Z these are the number of deaths you can expect."  Some states implement X,Y,Z thereby averting the deaths that otherwise would have occurred.  Then people who ignore that the projections were contingent on NOT implementing the measures "those projections were bogus the real numbers are much lower".

This disease has exponential growth.  It doubles every three days if you don't implement certain measures such as social distancing and school and venue closures.  States have taken those measures, which has slowed the rate of growth.

A 4-8 fold reduction is exactly what we expect from such measures with the duration they've been implemented.  That is why they were implemented.

The model supposedly factored that in and still predicted those hospitalization numbers.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Fenring on April 02, 2020, 02:10:56 PM
By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

Do us all a favor, run around town licking doorknobs and rubbing faces with other idiots so we don't have to hear your callous disregard for hundreds of thousands of lives any more.

Callous and accurate are not on the same axis. I don't know if Crunch's position is reasonable or not, but it is entirely possible that a brutal truth is merely a fact, and that calling it callous would then be equivalent to you saying you don't like reality. That is, *if* such statements are a reality. Obviously those on the opposite side of Crunch on this topic don't believe that is the reality, but it can't be callous to suggest that it is. It may be true that callousness would make someone more likely to believe that side of the hypothetical, but even so that doesn't make it wrong. It either is or is not the case that pushing things up to June will help significantly with the effort. If so, great. If not, then massive damage is done for little result. That's the calculus here; nothing more, nothing less.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on April 02, 2020, 02:27:56 PM
Quote
By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

it is a possibility. Its why we need accurate models and clarification on data variables
The data we get from most news sources aren't good enough.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 02, 2020, 02:28:12 PM
Callous and accurate are not on the same axis. I don't know if Crunch's position is reasonable or not, but it is entirely possible that a brutal truth is merely a fact, and that calling it callous would then be equivalent to you saying you don't like reality. That is, *if* such statements are a reality. Obviously those on the opposite side of Crunch on this topic don't believe that is the reality, but it can't be callous to suggest that it is. It may be true that callousness would make someone more likely to believe that side of the hypothetical, but even so that doesn't make it wrong. It either is or is not the case that pushing things up to June will help significantly with the effort. If so, great. If not, then massive damage is done for little result. That's the calculus here; nothing more, nothing less.

Mitigation is possible. See South Korea and Japan. We just have to ramp up and inform the public on ways to achieve that while we get the disease down to a manageable level. Where's Cherry? Looks like we're all going to be wearing face masks this summer. Those who can reasonably work remote should be continued to do so and large indoor gatherings should be avoided. Along with lots of testing and contact tracing it looks like you can get the transmission rate down to a manageable level while keeping society functioning. Schools and churches are likely to be the pain points in American society. Neither place is well designed to control the spread of something this contagious. Maybe churches go to 5 smaller services to allow for social distancing. Similarly schools could run 1/2 day sessions for kids every other day with online learning the other days. 1/4 of the number of kids in the class, no lunches, recess, kids still are learning but the classrooms are much emptier. There are ways to make this work.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 02, 2020, 02:35:22 PM
I posted on S Korea elsewhere. All we need to do is hand over our GPS to the government like they did, among other things. S Koreans are also more likely to follow recommendations without needing to order businesses to close.

Meanwhile every single professional I've heard from advocates for kicking the can for dozens of reasons, even if the number of cases and deaths stay similar on a long enough time line. The Crunchers in the world would have us all act as though there were no disease. He's advocating we just all go back to work, because nobody has savings and the economy rules all.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on April 02, 2020, 02:38:00 PM
Crunch,

The drugs still haven't been shown to work.  We have a single small double blind study that might imply lower risk of intubation but the number of patients is small enough that the result could easily be due to chance, and the rest of the results show similar to normal clinical course.  There is a good study (3000 patients) that should be able to inform us if any proposed interventions really work, and it will be out later this week.  When the small double blind study came out the other day - was the first time it became rational to think that hydroxcholoroquine might exceed the risks.

The other sources claiming results are the Italian doctor who has done small observational studies - who has apparently past ethics violations  that make anything he claims suspect.  Also as my analysis shows when compared to untreated patients - his results are quite similar.  And a Jewish doctor - who claims to have only treated members of his community - but the size of the community and the size of his claimed cohort of infected (almost none of them tested) would imply that NYC has essentially a 100% infection rate (actual estimates are still less than 1% of NYC population is infected).
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Fenring on April 02, 2020, 02:39:58 PM
The Crunchers in the world would have us all act as though there were no disease.

I don't think this is an accurate characterization of his position. Actually I don't think he's advocated for any particular course of action as far as I've read.

Quote
He's advocating we just all go back to work

Is he? Well even if so, it doesn't have to be as black and white as that.

Quote
because nobody has savings and the economy rules all.

Uh, they don't really, and it does, really. Tell people who can't afford to eat that the economy doesn't rule all. Valjean in Les Miz thought so, until he was thrown in prison for years for stealing bread.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 02, 2020, 02:46:36 PM
Are we still pretending that there is not a 2 trillion dollar stimulus and aid package in place?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 02, 2020, 02:55:10 PM
Overrunning our healthcare system is one of the main reasons for over-caution. Agreed?


The current IMHE models being referenced (and used by the whitehouse, IIR) seem to have been grossly inaccurate in this area. You can check them out for yourself (links below) but here are some example data as of yesterday:

The IMHE model predicted that on April 1st:

1,716 people in Texas will have been hospitalized due to virus. Actual: 196
2777 people in Georgia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 952
2214 people in Tennesee will have been hospitalized. Actual : 200
607 people in Virginia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 305

50,962 people in NY would have been hospitalized. Actual : 18,368


Projection data:
covid19.healthdata.org/projections
Hospitalization data:
covidtracking.com/data/

This is the problem with models. Yes, they get updated but if we're going to make massive decisions we should be doing so on models that approximate reality.

That's a good resource, thanks for sharing. When did the model make those predictions you cited, and what were the suppositions? No mitigation, some mitigation, or severe mitigation?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 02, 2020, 02:55:52 PM
The Crunchers in the world would have us all act as though there were no disease.

I don't think this is an accurate characterization of his position. Actually I don't think he's advocated for any particular course of action as far as I've read.

Quote
He's advocating we just all go back to work

Is he? Well even if so, it doesn't have to be as black and white as that.

Quote
because nobody has savings and the economy rules all.

Uh, they don't really, and it does, really. Tell people who can't afford to eat that the economy doesn't rule all. Valjean in Les Miz thought so, until he was thrown in prison for years for stealing bread.

We have trillions of dollars available to feed people. We just have to give it to them.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 02, 2020, 02:57:34 PM
By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

I inferred from this post that we should reopen everything now, because it just doesn't matter.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 02, 2020, 02:58:07 PM
Overrunning our healthcare system is one of the main reasons for over-caution. Agreed?


The current IMHE models being referenced (and used by the whitehouse, IIR) seem to have been grossly inaccurate in this area. You can check them out for yourself (links below) but here are some example data as of yesterday:

The IMHE model predicted that on April 1st:

1,716 people in Texas will have been hospitalized due to virus. Actual: 196
2777 people in Georgia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 952
2214 people in Tennesee will have been hospitalized. Actual : 200
607 people in Virginia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 305

50,962 people in NY would have been hospitalized. Actual : 18,368


Projection data:
covid19.healthdata.org/projections
Hospitalization data:
covidtracking.com/data/

This is the problem with models. Yes, they get updated but if we're going to make massive decisions we should be doing so on models that approximate reality.

That's a good resource, thanks for sharing. When did the model make those predictions you cited, and what were the suppositions? No mitigation, some mitigation, or severe mitigation?

The site is a bit vague. They're quick to point our where trends were in line, but don't talk about these big falling down points. From what I've researched the model was established on March 25th and supposedly factored in the current shutdown in it's projections.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on April 02, 2020, 03:01:24 PM
The Crunchers in the world would have us all act as though there were no disease.

I don't think this is an accurate characterization of his position. Actually I don't think he's advocated for any particular course of action as far as I've read.

Quote
He's advocating we just all go back to work

Is he? Well even if so, it doesn't have to be as black and white as that.

Quote
because nobody has savings and the economy rules all.

Uh, they don't really, and it does, really. Tell people who can't afford to eat that the economy doesn't rule all. Valjean in Les Miz thought so, until he was thrown in prison for years for stealing bread.

The Cruncher's tend to get stuck in the hyperbole of a message, which is in fashion, instead of stating clearly what they want and how it could be done

if others are having a issue to characterize his position its because he is failing to characterizes his position clearly of late. One must read between the lines. There are those that we will always have to do that for some people but I've seen better arguments from Crunch so know he can do better
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Fenring on April 02, 2020, 03:40:08 PM
We have trillions of dollars available to feed people. We just have to give it to them.

There are two issues here: one is cashflow, another is future expectation. The fact that monies were earmarked or set aside for a programme (such as a tax break) requires that the actual cashflow is operating as expected. And even more important, the only reason to offer a tax break would be because of the expectation of future prosperity; things are going well, so let's give a tax break. Ironically, the opposite (not doing well) can also be used to justify a stimulus. But if what you're talking about is using a surplus then we're in category A on that one. You can't actually follow through on a fiscal plan if the facts in evidence in the present have radically shifted towards an austere reality. So I don't think the way it works is that "we have" 2 trillion, but more like that's the estimated net amount (over a year, for instance) that can be devoted to that goal all things being equal. They are no longer equal, and this is no mere hurricane in terms of emergency relief fund. Any sense of 'having that money to spend' can be basically forgotten.

That being said I do agree with relief spending; and you already know I favor a UBI generally. But all of these things require business as usual to actually finance them; otherwise you end up having to resort to printing money ridiculously to pay for it all, and that is not a viable way to finance a UBI. The major factor allowing any central-banking solution to work is that the economy persists as normal. Eliminate the business operations and you remove the infrastructure that can support the central powers. Even printing money has a diminishing return as the economy spirals downwards, since it will cease acting as a stimulus at a certain point and will just inflate the currency to oblivion. That's why it has to be used sparingly rather than as a catchall to pay for infinite relief.

But hey, I'll be glad if this occasion spurs on a change in the monetary system wholesale :)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 02, 2020, 03:57:45 PM
We have trillions of dollars available to feed people. We just have to give it to them.

There are two issues here: one is cashflow, another is future expectation. The fact that monies were earmarked or set aside for a programme (such as a tax break) requires that the actual cashflow is operating as expected. And even more important, the only reason to offer a tax break would be because of the expectation of future prosperity; things are going well, so let's give a tax break. Ironically, the opposite (not doing well) can also be used to justify a stimulus. But if what you're talking about is using a surplus then we're in category A on that one. You can't actually follow through on a fiscal plan if the facts in evidence in the present have radically shifted towards an austere reality. So I don't think the way it works is that "we have" 2 trillion, but more like that's the estimated net amount (over a year, for instance) that can be devoted to that goal all things being equal. They are no longer equal, and this is no mere hurricane in terms of emergency relief fund. Any sense of 'having that money to spend' can be basically forgotten.

That being said I do agree with relief spending; and you already know I favor a UBI generally. But all of these things require business as usual to actually finance them; otherwise you end up having to resort to printing money ridiculously to pay for it all, and that is not a viable way to finance a UBI. The major factor allowing any central-banking solution to work is that the economy persists as normal. Eliminate the business operations and you remove the infrastructure that can support the central powers. Even printing money has a diminishing return as the economy spirals downwards, since it will cease acting as a stimulus at a certain point and will just inflate the currency to oblivion. That's why it has to be used sparingly rather than as a catchall to pay for infinite relief.

But hey, I'll be glad if this occasion spurs on a change in the monetary system wholesale :)

I should be more clear. I didn't necessarily even mean the government. Trump, according to him, is a billionaire. Haven't heard about him writing a check though. He donated his $100k government salary. Apple has 100 billion dollars in cash. How many billion does it take to prop up a million people for 3 months?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 04:15:47 PM
Quote
Economists at the Fed’s St. Louis district project total employment reductions of 47 million, which would translate to a 32.1 percent unemployment rate, according to a recent analysis.

Quote
That would bring the U.S. unemployment rolls to 52.8 million, or more than three times worse than the peak of the Great Recession. The 30 percent unemployment rate would top the Great Depression peak of 24.9 percent.

We're *censored*ed.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 04:22:15 PM
By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

Do us all a favor, run around town licking doorknobs and rubbing faces with other idiots so we don't have to hear your callous disregard for hundreds of thousands of lives any more.

I started a thread to let people know if they need help, they can reach out. You make a post asking me to get sick and die. Which of us is the more callous?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on April 02, 2020, 04:24:22 PM
Quote
Economists at the Fed’s St. Louis district project total employment reductions of 47 million, which would translate to a 32.1 percent unemployment rate, according to a recent analysis.

Quote
That would bring the U.S. unemployment rolls to 52.8 million, or more than three times worse than the peak of the Great Recession. The 30 percent unemployment rate would top the Great Depression peak of 24.9 percent.

We're *censored*ed.

definitely could be bad
What would you like to see happen to avoid that.  Any kind of plan?
Is your position  to end the lock down now and see what happens?. Its a valid position if you can back it up with a plan to deal with the other problems that doing so might create.

I'm just saying everyone is worried. Some worry about the economy some about health and family and some about both. Continuing to point out how bad things could get Isn't' helping with the anxiety.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 04:28:16 PM
I posted that, quite a few commented about how unrealistic it was. Weird that you guys keep insisting I didn’t.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 04:30:25 PM
Quote
Continuing to point out how bad things could get Isn't' helping with the anxiety.

Oh my god, where have you been the last 3 weeks?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on April 02, 2020, 04:33:24 PM
Must have missed it. and can't find it.

I don't think others on the site disagree with you that the economic implications of all this could be dire.
What to do about it is the question.

And I agree with you there is a tipping point were we harm more people, harm including death, by continuing a lock down to long.  I don't know when we reach that point  and am not sure if the models are taking that into account. It would be a complex model. I wish it was being talked about in a calm and reasoned manner

Quote
Oh my god, where have you been the last 3 week
I have been very careful in the amount of news I take in and what I pay attention to.
If I listened to how the world was ending and all that 24/7 what good would it do.
I want smart people to be talking about what we can do and options not what might or might not happen and who might be to blame
you don't have to worry me any more then I'm worried to make your point.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 02, 2020, 05:38:15 PM
By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

Do us all a favor, run around town licking doorknobs and rubbing faces with other idiots so we don't have to hear your callous disregard for hundreds of thousands of lives any more.

I started a thread to let people know if they need help, they can reach out. You make a post asking me to get sick and die. Which of us is the more callous?

That was uncalled for and I apologize for it. But I feel like you are asking other people to die for the sake of the economy.

All anybody is asking for right now, including the white house, is to assume a worst case scenario for the next thirty days to buy us time to study the problem in depth, build up critical supplies and equipment, and examine potential treatments. Are you against that?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2020, 06:41:45 PM
I’m not asking people to die. Jesus *censored*ing Christ.

I am pointing out that we will, in the short term, flatten infection rates. However, unless we completely eradicate the virus or become immune we are not flattening the curve at all. We’re merely shifting the spike down the road. Modeling supports this and, because we’re now shifting the peak to fall and winter, we very well may be increasing the fatalities from WuFlu. That’s the reality of the situation.

We’ve gotten into a situation where the best case scenario is we utterly destroy the economy and gain nothing. The worst case scenario is we flatten the economy and even more die.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 02, 2020, 07:02:28 PM
You are completely ignoring the value of buying time for preparation. More people absolutely will die if the spike comes now versus in two months. Meanwhile the infection rate continues, but at a slower pace, so by definition the spike should be lower at any rate. We can reasonably argue about how much value, I'll agree.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 02, 2020, 07:07:14 PM
During that time, companies can adjust to a distributed work force. There is no reason why 3 million Americans working in call centers can't do that job at home.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 02, 2020, 08:34:19 PM
...
I am pointing out that we will, in the short term, flatten infection rates. However, unless we completely eradicate the virus or become immune we are not flattening the curve at all. We’re merely shifting the spike down the road. Modeling supports this and, because we’re now shifting the peak to fall and winter, we very well may be increasing the fatalities from WuFlu. That’s the reality of the situation.

Unless we learn, mitigate, test, and stock up. The virus will continue to pop up, cause people to limit travel and mass gatherings but we can come out of the full out shut down if we prepare and make some behavioral adjustments.

Quote
We’ve gotten into a situation where the best case scenario is we utterly destroy the economy and gain nothing. The worst case scenario is we flatten the economy and even more die.

Never thought of you as someone who was such a defeatist. That isn't where we're at, other countries have had success with mitigation. America just needs to find the mitigation strategy that works for our society.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 02, 2020, 08:50:00 PM
Until the exponential growth curve which has happened as a result of "20 year olds who can shrug this off"(but can't in reality based on Hospital admittance rates) ...

Just to keep it in reality, the fatality rate for under 30 is currently at 0.2% globally. So, in reality, the 20 and under crowd to actually can shrug this off.

Fatality rate is the wrong metric.

Not dying is not the same thing as not becoming deathly ill.

It also ignores most hospitals, especially in Italy, but now being repeated elsewhere, are preferentially treating the younger patients over the older ones.

If it's a choice between a 75YO or a 28YO on who gets the ventilator, the 75YO is getting disconnected, if they ever get connected in the first place.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 02, 2020, 09:00:19 PM
In addition to serious cases of SARS having permanent, serious health effects, a .2 fatality rate for those infected among the below-20 crowd is still twice the fatality rate of a normal seasonal flu across all age groups.  And since the novel coronavirus is far more transmissible than a regular seasonal flu, and since nobody has antibodies for the virus, it isn't unreasonable to think that, left to its own devices, far more young people will get infected by the new virus as well. 
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 02, 2020, 09:01:31 PM
This is the problem with models. Yes, they get updated but if we're going to make massive decisions we should be doing so on models that approximate reality.

Where have I heard this kind of statement before?  8)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 02, 2020, 09:08:48 PM
By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

"We're not ready" for what would happen if we did that. We need time to prepare. If nothing else, suppliers need a chance to catch up with demand before you unleash a Tsunami on a Medical system which is already experience massive supply shortages.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 02, 2020, 09:13:00 PM
Callous and accurate are not on the same axis. I don't know if Crunch's position is reasonable or not, but it is entirely possible that a brutal truth is merely a fact, and that calling it callous would then be equivalent to you saying you don't like reality. That is, *if* such statements are a reality. Obviously those on the opposite side of Crunch on this topic don't believe that is the reality, but it can't be callous to suggest that it is. It may be true that callousness would make someone more likely to believe that side of the hypothetical, but even so that doesn't make it wrong. It either is or is not the case that pushing things up to June will help significantly with the effort. If so, great. If not, then massive damage is done for little result. That's the calculus here; nothing more, nothing less.

It's reasonable to a degree, I'll have to dig around a bit, but I think you can find me commenting about how this very discussion was likely to become very relevant as we dealt with this outbreak back in February or the very first part of March.

At some point the risk vs reward calculus is going to say "let it run" it just becomes a question of when that becomes so. But it certainly isn't going to happen while hospitals are running out of Tylenol, sedatives, and protective equipment. They desperately need time to prepare for what such an onslaught would likely bring, they can't handle what they're currently experiencing, and that's WITH a lockdown in place across much of the country and world.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 02, 2020, 09:13:37 PM
So Crunch, how would you balance the competing pressures of reducing the death rate while limiting the negative effects on the economy?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 02, 2020, 10:13:04 PM
I’m not asking people to die. Jesus *censored*ing Christ.

I am pointing out that we will, in the short term, flatten infection rates. However, unless we completely eradicate the virus or become immune we are not flattening the curve at all. We’re merely shifting the spike down the road. Modeling supports this and, because we’re now shifting the peak to fall and winter, we very well may be increasing the fatalities from WuFlu. That’s the reality of the situation.

Most of the "post-lockdown" situation is straight-forward enough.

Most factories and other industrial entities will be able to resume (mostly) normal operations, just with a few additional precautions.

Restaurants will be able to re-open, but social distancing requirements are going to greatly diminish the number of dine-in customers they can accommodate. Areas that rely on tourist/business travelers are going to be hammered by that, as their clientele is restricted to essentially locals only.

Travel will continue to be strongly discouraged, large gatherings will likewise be out. So no rock concerts w/audience, no conventions, no sporting events with large crowds. MLB, NBA, and the NFL can play, but the stadium seating situation is going to be very different while this is going on.

Movie theaters are likely to not reopen for a long while, or if they do, with significant restrictions on audience size because social distancing is in full effect. A "sell out" theater means you're leaving entire rows vacant, and absent a social/family group coming in, you're likely leaving 3 out of every 4 seats vacant. For many theaters, that likely means it simply won't be worth opening back up while those measures are in place. (If they work out the right pattern, they could probably work out a scenario where they use maybe 1 out of every 5 or 6 seats across every row, but that's likely to require designated seating becoming the norm, and enforcement of physical distance.)

Many other businesses will be able to (mostly) resume normal operations. The furniture stores can reopen, the mattress supply store can open up. the sporting goods store(that doesn't sell firearms) can resume operation, etc.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 03, 2020, 03:17:30 AM
the sporting goods store(that doesn't sell firearms) can resume operation, etc.

Before some tries to jump on this one, for the unknowing and clarity alike. The reason the firearm comment was made is because gun stores are being deemed as "essential services" in many areas, so they're already open. They won't be resuming operations, they'll just be continuing them instead.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 03, 2020, 03:53:20 AM
Had occasion sit through Tucker Carlson's report on Fox News this evening, and spent some time with it paused while deconstructing it with others. (Also had exposure MSNBC, or more specifically Brian Williams, trying to blame Trump in any way they could conceive of during the three minutes I watched before leaving the room. Did later see a little bit of CNN playing later on, they were more reasonable but still skewed; Tucker was actually the last one I saw)

Tucker basically presented much the same argument that Crunch is seeming to try to make. And Tucker is being an idiot, even the expert he brought on to bolster his case argued for the Lockdown rather than against it like he'd evidently been hoping for.

Tucker argued that we should have isolated all of the elderly and immune compromised people and let the virus run its course.

Immediate problem: You'd need to isolate their caregivers too. No assisted living center is equipped for their entire staff, or even a fraction of it, to be living with the residents for the duration which is basically what would be needed for that scenario.  So it fails from the onset, as the caregivers would inevitably infect the residents at some point.

Next issue is we basically attempted a hybrid of what he proposed as what we should have done. News flash: Nearly half of the people in the hospitals are under the age of 50. And that's with much of the country having practicedattempted social distancing before switching to a lockdown, which was still rather half-arsed in much of the areas involved. Even with that the Hospitals are overwhelmed and facing severe supply shortages. There is no way that his fantasy hypothetical option would have played out with a lower death toll.

The economic side of it could be argued as "being better" but I have extreme doubts about that, people would have begun social distancing on their own as people around them started being sent to the hospital in large numbers, with large numbers of them not getting there, or ending up in ICU where they likely died. And then you're dealing with the social fall out and costs for all those deeply traumatized individuals who saw friends and loved ones suddenly die, or nearly die and come out of the experience possibly with life-long ailments(lung scarring, secondary infections from the Hospital--nothing like a antibiotic resistant staph infection to make like interesting for a 20-something) as a memento.

I am becoming more convinced that China was manipulating the data being provided to the WHO coming out of Wuhan. While the Origin of the virus is a complete unknown that likely will never be verified one way or another. I strongly suspect China was manipulating the death data in particular, and I have to wonder why there was such a scarcity of data regarding who was being hospitalized or ending up in the ICU. In hindsight reporting only the death data, where again those numbers seem highly suspicious based on what we're seeing in the US, seems to be an attempt to lull huge swaths of the global population into a false sense of complacency. But Tucker didn't touch that other than vague accusations about China manipulating data.

He also seemed to love lambasting the CDC and Health Officials for failing to contain the outbreak within the US, and go on a rant about how things should be done... When it is because things were done the way he argued for (by way of a publicly elected official by the name of Donald Trump) that the full advice and guidance of the CDC was not followed, and thus we're now in the situation we find ourselves in now. But Tucker is a partisan and cannot blame Trump for what happened, so the Health Officials get blamed for Trump refusing to fully carry out their suggested actions which would have been very "politically expensive" to carry out at that time, with only a thin justification to support it.

One of those damned if you do, damned if you don't scenarios. He took a calculated risk, and lost. If he did what CDC wanted, they likely would have contained it, at significant public cost, but a fraction of what it now has cost, but hindsight is 20/20 on those kinds of things. But because it was successfully contained(in the hypothetical), the media would have lambasted him for being overly cautious, racist, and a whole slew of other nasty things; while he potentially has little to nothing to justify doing what was done... At least until Italy and the rest of Europe got sick, but he had no way to know that would happen.

Likewise, he and the various assorted Governors are going to be presented with another choice in a few weeks about moving forward. Hopefully CDC and company advocate for something like "the dance" and that's what they go with... But only once they have all the infrastructure in place to do so. A premature return to business as usual would be a disaster. They can ease up on some restrictions in a few weeks, but only some of them. Most of the easing off can only happen once the medical supplies catch up to, and surpass demand, and they have a viable and robust testing system in place to detect, isolate, and contain outbreaks as they flare up.

This is a situation that will need to be managed until either a viable vaccine is deployed, or herd immunity approaches 80 to 90 percent in many areas.

It's not an enviable task, they're going to be balancing the needs of isolating and limiting the ability of the virus to overwhelm the hospital system while also trying to allow as much of the economy to function as possible at the same time. This is not going to be anything resembling an easy feat.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 03, 2020, 08:16:01 AM
...
I am pointing out that we will, in the short term, flatten infection rates. However, unless we completely eradicate the virus or become immune we are not flattening the curve at all. We’re merely shifting the spike down the road. Modeling supports this and, because we’re now shifting the peak to fall and winter, we very well may be increasing the fatalities from WuFlu. That’s the reality of the situation.

Unless we learn, mitigate, test, and stock up. The virus will continue to pop up, cause people to limit travel and mass gatherings but we can come out of the full out shut down if we prepare and make some behavioral adjustments.

Quote
We’ve gotten into a situation where the best case scenario is we utterly destroy the economy and gain nothing. The worst case scenario is we flatten the economy and even more die.

Never thought of you as someone who was such a defeatist. That isn't where we're at, other countries have had success with mitigation. America just needs to find the mitigation strategy that works for our society.

What other countries have created 10 million unemployed in the last two weeks? What countries are projecting a 30% plus unemployment rate?

You’re right, I’m far from a defeatist or alarmist. I think many are truly not fully grasping the situation. We’re creating something that essentially  dwarfs the Great Depression.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 03, 2020, 08:38:35 AM
Is "the country" projecting that, or is that a worst case projection by one bank, and prior to the stimulus bill being announced?

Other countries are going through exactly the same level of shutdowns as the USA - you aren't really suggesting that Italy is less locked down, are you?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 03, 2020, 09:08:28 AM
What other countries have created 10 million unemployed in the last two weeks? What countries are projecting a 30% plus unemployment rate?

You’re right, I’m far from a defeatist or alarmist. I think many are truly not fully grasping the situation. We’re creating something that essentially  dwarfs the Great Depression.

Other countries have stronger worker protections and were quicker to provide businesses with money to keep furloughed people on the payrolls. We don't have huge structural problems with the economy so as long the feds keep enough money flowing to prevent a financial crisis the economy (minus certain sectors) will recover quickly once the lock down ends.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 03, 2020, 10:54:38 AM
A premature return to business as usual would be a disaster. They can ease up on some restrictions in a few weeks, but only some of them. Most of the easing off can only happen once the medical supplies catch up to, and surpass demand, and they have a viable and robust testing system in place to detect, isolate, and contain outbreaks as they flare up.

There are a couple of aspects with this opinion that trouble me. First, of the things you mention above, the only thing that seems to have semi-reliable data is the lack of testing. Even then, unless you can point me to a site that shows reliable state-by-state testing capacity, we're not operating with valid data. Don't mistake this statement for denial.

The other data and models around projected hospitalization have just been flat out wrong (see my earlier posts with links), and not by a little. To me this indicates we are making crucial decisions based on either non-existent data or data that is not reliable. Those should be *really* important factors in high impact decisions.

Second, it seems to me we're making decisions nationally under broad assumptions. Should Oregon continue to shut down like NY, even though the state's own data show's it's completely non-sensical?

I'm not a Corona-denier (I suspect that will be a label at some point) - and don't mistake my argument for "back to work, immediately!" but I'm very uncomfortable with the decisions and assumptions being made on data that's proven to be so flimsy.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: oldbrian on April 03, 2020, 10:57:37 AM
Quote
Should Oregon continue to shut down like NY, even though the state's own data show's it's completely non-sensical?

The state's data showed a comparison through May.  Someone already asked what the comparison would be for June and July.
Does that extrapolation exist on the site you found?  There are a lot of plans that look better in the short term but balloon in the medium or long term.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 03, 2020, 12:10:21 PM
Quote
Second, it seems to me we're making decisions nationally under broad assumptions. Should Oregon continue to shut down like NY, even though the state's own data show's it's completely non-sensical?

Because when you're dealing with an exponential curve, you need to shut the barn door before the horses get out. Ask NY if they wish now that they had locked the city down earlier. This is especially true when you can't adequately identify cases and isolate sick people.

Testing and cases are indeed unreliable - I prefer a solid metric like % ICU beds occupied.

Quote
Some 850 COVID-19 patients occupied ICU beds in hospitals across New York City that day — up from 525 three days earlier.

The state statistics, obtained by THE CITY, revealed stark numbers that underscored the urgent need for additional hospital capacity as more and more people get sick from coronavirus.

The details came to light as medical centers report being overwhelmed, well before the crisis is expected to hit its peak. State and city officials are scrambling to create more medical treatment space everywhere from CUNY campuses to the Javits Center as they press hospitals to increase the stock of critical care beds.

The state hospitalization survey obtained by THE CITY shows that of the 2,011 ICU beds in the city Thursday, just 15% remained available amid a surge of incoming patients.

So they got 300 ICU beds remaining, and they added 500 patients in 3 days.

Why might Oregon jump the gun a little?

Quote
Then there’s this: The 62 hospitals in the state already run at about 65% of capacity without treating coronavirus patients, and some hospitals, such as OHSU, face even higher demand.

“Without a significant slowing of COVID-19, Oregon will not be able to serve the hospital needs of Oregonians without creating more beds,” Edwards said.

Oregon has fewest hospital beds per capita in U.S. (https://mailtribune.com/news/coronavirus/oregon-has-fewest-hospital-beds-per-capita-in-us)
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 03, 2020, 12:39:13 PM
A premature return to business as usual would be a disaster. They can ease up on some restrictions in a few weeks, but only some of them. Most of the easing off can only happen once the medical supplies catch up to, and surpass demand, and they have a viable and robust testing system in place to detect, isolate, and contain outbreaks as they flare up.

There are a couple of aspects with this opinion that trouble me. First, of the things you mention above, the only thing that seems to have semi-reliable data is the lack of testing. Even then, unless you can point me to a site that shows reliable state-by-state testing capacity, we're not operating with valid data. Don't mistake this statement for denial.

"Catch up to and surpass demand" is comparatively easy, although many may not like the time frame for that metric being met.

You track the supply status of the various hospitals across the state/nation. (Final discretion should remain with the state at least up to a point, IMO) So long as "a substantial number" of hospitals are unable to meet current demand for medical supplies, everyone remains in a (near-)lockdown. Individual states should only consider lifting restrictions locally once hospitals in their respective areas start reporting that their supplies are back to normal levels or ideally, likely exceed normal levels.

Based on experience to date, if most hospitals in your state don't have at least a 1 month supply(under normal use) under their control, you don't re-open those areas. With reports of consumption being over 10x normal, a 1 month supply is equivalent to 3 days if you start having an outbreak hit the area--time you'll need for the normal supply chain(people driving trucks) to start moving a high volume of supplies to that area. Which brings us to the testing infrastructure.

We need to be testing easily and often. We need to know who has it, even if their symptoms are mild, so we know who likely doesn't need to worry about it much going forward. It also helps give us a better picture of what the situation is like in a given area, and better limit any potential spread.

And the testing capacity doesn't exist right now. It'll probably be a couple months at least before that capacity exists. Most of the manufacturers for testing kits are talking about hundreds of thousands of test kits per month with respect to their kits once they get production underway. With over 330 million people in the US, that's a major problem, one which may require the Defense Production Act to be invoked in order to fix.

IF the supply chain can catch up, we can play a lot looser on what kind testing is available, as the medical supply chain has been beefed up considerably in the past few weeks. But it is still something we have to be VERY careful about doing. Without sufficient testing, by the time you know the exponential growth curve is out of hand for an area, it's probably already to late to prevent the local medical system from being overwhelmed. Which is the thing we're trying to prevent, although if people remain compartmentalized within their respective regions it should be viable to transport people to neighboring areas for treatment in such a scenario. But that means travel restrictions are still needed, so that outbreaks only impact "small areas" rather than whole (large) states or groups of states.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 03, 2020, 12:42:35 PM
Correction:

Quote
Some 850 COVID-19 patients occupied ICU beds in hospitals across New York City that day — up from 525 three days earlier.
.

So they got 300 ICU beds remaining, and they added 500 300 patients in 3 days.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 03, 2020, 02:38:48 PM
I have a concerned about people with the virus being quarantined with each other as if it no longer matters because they can't get infected twice. Now we know people exhale the virus and it gets into the air. So the worry is that while their body is still making more virus within itself that viral load is being added to by the air they are breathing which is infected by everyone around around and also themselves. Now I don't know if works like that but I have to wonder.

Of course you can have quarantine situations where everyone is isolated from each other and that's great, but I'm not sure they are all like that and it seems like sometimes they might just put everyone who is corona virus positive into the same room without separate ventilation systems or anything to keep their air from mingling.

The same principle may even hold for asymptomatic carriers associating with each other. Again, not sure just wondering out loud. If two or more people have it and are separated then they only have to deal with their own viral loads but if they are all together and sharing the same virus laden air then would the added viral load on their systems increase their danger by taxing their bodies more than they might be able to handle if they were alone instead?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 03, 2020, 04:35:02 PM
There has been one reported case of someone being infected with two different strains of covid19 simultaneously, so co-infections can happen. What hasn't been demonstrated is successive infections, and all information indicates that once an immunity is developed you should be safe from all currently known strains for the time being... But it can mutate at any time.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 03, 2020, 04:43:19 PM
Quote
I have a concerned about people with the virus being quarantined with each other as if it no longer matters because they can't get infected twice. Now we know people exhale the virus and it gets into the air. So the worry is that while their body is still making more virus within itself that viral load is being added to by the air they are breathing which is infected by everyone around around and also themselves. Now I don't know if works like that but I have to wonder.

I'm not an expert but I believe that a virus within the body replicates fast enough, that this would be like the difference between a person's body having to fight 10.000 copies of the virus or 10.001 copies of the virus: once a person's already infected, the person acquiring more copies of the virus via additional infection would make little enough difference that one needn't be concerned about it.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on April 03, 2020, 04:47:08 PM
Viral load at exposure is a good predictor of complications and clinical course.  So I'm somewhat concerned about shared respirators - however in many cases it is likely a choice between either slight increased risk of death from increased viral load from shared respirator vs garunteed death for one patient due to lack of respirator.

Also,

Found some support for my suspicion that part of Italy's high load is their verbal communication style.

Quote
Normal speech by individuals who are asymptomatic but infected with coronavirus may produce enough aerosolized particles to transmit the infection, according to aerosol scientists at the University of California, Davis. Although it's not yet known how important this is to the spread of COVID-19,

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-important-speech-transmitting-coronavirus.html
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 04, 2020, 07:58:59 AM
Recent poll shows half of Americans have less than three weeks of emergency funds (25% have none). 10 million applied for unemployment in the last 2 weeks.

Nonfarm payrolls dropped by 701,000 in March and that’s the very tip of it. April will show further collapse.

Mortgage companies are preparing for 30% of mortgages to default within the next few weeks.

The economy was the best in American history only a couple of months ago so we can still recover this but we have to act now. Another month of this, it’ll take years to recover. Another 2 months, we may see completely new nations emerge from the ashes.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 04, 2020, 08:14:15 AM
The economy was the best in American history only a couple of months ago so we can still recover this but we have to act now. Another month of this, it’ll take years to recover. Another 2 months, we may see completely new nations emerge from the ashes.

Earlier in the thread, you were making fun of people talking about the risk of coronavirus and talking about *potential* dead:

A large meteor has the POTENTIAL to eliminate all life on earth. POTENTIAL!! ALL LIFE!!

Should we shut down everything for it and run around like our hair is on fire? I mean, if it's all about POTENTIAL. ::)

Now you're constructing scenarios where "new nations emerge from the ashes".

Are you calling this a certainty, rather than a potentiality?

Why should we care about the potentiality of devastation caused by economic measures, in a way that you previously argued we shouldn't have cared about the coronavirus?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 04, 2020, 08:52:38 AM
First, a virus is different than the economy.

Second, we have very real data that  is extremely current on the economic conditions being created and the financial state of those going through it. We don’t need computer models and phd’s to understand this.

Third, we can look at history and see what happens when a country’s economy collapses.


I’m not saying it’s a certainty. I am looking at real data and real historical events as a guide and making the assumption that such events are still possible.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 04, 2020, 09:11:55 AM
And as for me not buying the virus hype...

Initially, 2.2 million could die in US because of coronavirus.

1 week later -100,000-200,000 could die

1 week later, Fauci: "I've looked at all the models, I've spent a lot of time on the models. They don't tell you anything. You can't really rely on models"
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 04, 2020, 10:07:54 AM
Quote
And as for me not buying the virus hype...

Initially, 2.2 million could die in US because of coronavirus.

1 week later -100,000-200,000 could die

I've only heard the "2.2 million" in the scenario to nothing being done to contain the virus. This isn't the case and couldn't have been the case, because the states would act even if Trump wouldn't.

But perhaps you should also not be buying the virus *anti-*hype either.

Initially, according to Trump, end of January, it was just one person from China, and there was no more problem because travel from China was shut down.

Then, again according to Trump, end of February, it was 15 people, and some of them had gotten better, and the numbers were going down. (By this time I was already telling my own family that according to all the evidence, it would be the worst global epidemic in the last 100 years, and warning them against needless travelling)

Now it's 1000 people dying every day in the Unites States alone (let alone the rest of the world), and the numbers are going up, not down.

Quote
I’m not saying it’s a certainty. I am looking at real data and real historical events as a guide and making the assumption that such events are still possible.

Too bad you didn't also look at e.g. real historical events like the Spanish Flu.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on April 04, 2020, 11:16:52 AM
I haven't seen the mortality rate from before Coronavirus was commented upon. Many of these Coronavirus deaths are from that same metric. I have heard that some people have died from it who have no underlying conditions, or are they just undiscovered underlying conditions? Data are very slippery things, and the numbers I've seen are flashy and well-quoted, but blatantly manipulated. When this all started, the deaths attributed to the yearly flu were also huge, but largely unconcerning when it came to reacting to it - just the normal, "get your flue shots." Only the Japanese and Chinese were walking around with masks. In China, that was because of the poor air quality, in Japan, it was more a social isolationism via culture.

The one data response I understand is the bell-shaped curve that flus have always followed. The oldest impacted countries are claiming that curve has happened. Sure hope so.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 04, 2020, 11:43:46 AM
And as for me not buying the virus hype...

Initially, 2.2 million could die in US because of coronavirus.

1 week later -100,000-200,000 could die

1 week later, Fauci: "I've looked at all the models, I've spent a lot of time on the models. They don't tell you anything. You can't really rely on models"
1. As you know, you are comparing the do-nothing scenario (2.2M) against the current isolation strategy 100k-200k.  It should be clear to you why those numbers are different.

As for your Fauci "quote": Daily Wire (https://www.dailywire.com/news/fauci-you-cant-rely-on-the-models-too-many-variables)
Quote
During a recent task force meeting, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and one of the team’s leading voices, called into question modeling projections in general, according to the Post’s sources.

“I’ve looked at all the models. I’ve spent a lot of time on the models. They don’t tell you anything. You can’t really rely upon models,” Dr. Fauci told other task force members this week, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the exchange.
Two questions:
1. This is likely a paraphrase, not a quote.  Do you think it possible that some nuances of language might have been lost when conveying this information to the media?
2. Since when did you become a fan of unnamed sources?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Fenring on April 04, 2020, 11:47:53 AM
@ DonaldD,

While your objections to those particular quotes might be warranted, it seems to miss the point of quoting them, which is to argue that a hypothetical danger from a natural source that's hard to calculate should not necessarily be considered more important an issue than a real danger from ourselves that's not so hard to calculate. I mean, numerically a mortgage market crisis is hard to calculate, but we know exactly *how* it happens, and know what it looks like now and what effects it can have.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 04, 2020, 12:28:22 PM
All of those numbers being thrown around are based on projections from a model.

The IMHE model (informed by the Imperial London College model which caused the initial panic - and still being used by government agencies) has been updated to reflect social distancing. The good news is it doesn't appear to be getting MORE wrong, but it still does not resemble reality in any way.

For New York State, April 4: more of the same, 65,400 beds projected, 15,905 actually used (new hospitalizations fell notably day-over-day); 12,000 ICU beds projected, 4,100 used.

Same links I provided earlier.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on April 04, 2020, 12:36:09 PM
...Fauci: "I've looked at all the models, I've spent a lot of time on the models. They don't tell you anything. You can't really rely on models"

I wish models did not have the legitimacy that has grown around them. Most models are made by bureaucrat-motivated number crunchers. The most famous ones made by liars and paid-off researches in the AGW field were proven to be based on falsified data which were then admitted to be those who made them - but are still quoted as being "real science" and those who actually understand the falsified data are "deniers." When false data get made into false models, the result is never good.

In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable." (National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy.)

Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring.

Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing." (Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company)

The environmental movement used DDT as a means to increase their power. Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, commented, "If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT." (Seattle Times, October 5, 1969)

Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." [Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]

Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus' aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckleshaus used the disinformational modeling data from Carson to kill more people than all the world wars put together, when DDT was banned and the death rate once again reappeared.

My favorite example of off-base models happened in WWII. Some Generals got together and ordered every shot that hit bombers be superimposed on a chart to show where all the shots on the planes were clustered, in order to put more armor at those points. A lowly non-com poo-poohed the whole project by saying, you need to armor the areas that don't show clusters of shots, because these are the planes that made it back.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 04, 2020, 12:47:10 PM
Quote
And as for me not buying the virus hype...

Initially, 2.2 million could die in US because of coronavirus.

1 week later -100,000-200,000 could die

I've only heard the "2.2 million" in the scenario to nothing being done to contain the virus. This isn't the case and couldn't have been the case, because the states would act even if Trump wouldn't.

But perhaps you should also not be buying the virus *anti-*hype either.

Initially, according to Trump, end of January, it was just one person from China, and there was no more problem because travel from China was shut down.

Then, again according to Trump, end of February, it was 15 people, and some of them had gotten better, and the numbers were going down. (By this time I was already telling my own family that according to all the evidence, it would be the worst global epidemic in the last 100 years, and warning them against needless travelling)

Now it's 1000 people dying every day in the Unites States alone (let alone the rest of the world), and the numbers are going up, not down.

Quote
I’m not saying it’s a certainty. I am looking at real data and real historical events as a guide and making the assumption that such events are still possible.

Too bad you didn't also look at e.g. real historical events like the Spanish Flu.

Too bad that’s the only historical event you seem to know.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 04, 2020, 12:51:51 PM
There are some truly puzzling and frankly despicable patterns of "death reporting" that are happening as well. Not unique to the US, as thousands of the Italy deaths reported on the rolling COVID-19 ticker were not actually attributed to the virus by medical officials.

One of the more egregious US examples was the governor of CT a couple of days ago using his social media bullhorn to loudly announce the first COVID death of a newborn in his state. Even if this was true, what's the upside of announcing this? I can't read his mind but I'm guessing he would say "to make sure people stay vigilant, even with newborns". Maybe? The problem is it was complete bull$#t as the baby was accidentally smothered by its caregiver. So now we have traumatized mothers of newborns who will be...extra vigilant? Lamont still hasn't retracted the lie. I guess we don't want them to realize that statistically, their babies are literally more likely to die from suffocation than Coronavirus.

One case is not a big deal but it goes to a larger, bizarre trend of people seemingly trying to one-up others on the "see? it's REALLY bad" meter. Many of our leaders and agencies have gone full TMZ.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on April 04, 2020, 12:54:53 PM
...Too bad that’s the only historical event you seem to know.

Not really fair. Trump has two edges to his sword; to use the bully pulpit to salvage the economy and spread the health info from the experts. If the experts give him bad info, the naysayers attack him and not the source. Historical data means everything to these people, but not always for the right reasons.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 04, 2020, 12:56:44 PM
@ DonaldD,

While your objections to those particular quotes might be warranted, it seems to miss the point of quoting them, which is to argue that a hypothetical danger from a natural source that's hard to calculate should not necessarily be considered more important an issue than a real danger from ourselves that's not so hard to calculate. I mean, numerically a mortgage market crisis is hard to calculate, but we know exactly *how* it happens, and know what it looks like now and what effects it can have.

Precisely. And because we know that we are now intentionally creating a new mortgage crisis that dwarfs the one 2008. We can’t simply wave our hands and dismiss this as a nonissue.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 04, 2020, 12:58:13 PM
...Too bad that’s the only historical event you seem to know.

Not really fair. Trump has two edges to his sword; to use the bully pulpit to salvage the economy and spread the health info from the experts. If the experts give him bad info, the naysayers attack him and not the source. Historical data means everything to these people, but not always for the right reasons.

The point is that too many are pretending that the spanish flu event is the only thing we should look at.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 04, 2020, 01:05:15 PM
It's not that big a deal. As the economy continues to tank, the government can just issue more checks. Or distribute money from Apple, they've got oodles of the stuff.

Now that I think about it, we've probably been doing this whole economy thing wrong.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 04, 2020, 01:10:46 PM
The point is that too many are pretending that the spanish flu event is the only thing we should look at.

No, you should have also looked at the thousands of dead in Wuhan and Italy. You should have looked at the death rates and the transmission rates, and even the willingness of China to shut down Wuhan's entire economy in order to stop the spread of that disease, and concluded that something very dangerous was happening.

Or did you think that China was risking economic devastation just to trick the rest of the world into following suit, a suicide-bomber sort of thing where it hurts itself just to take us with it?

Trump, monomaniacal in his obsession of seeing EVERYTHING as a PR stunt, either by himself or by his enemies, called the 'coronavirus hysteria' a hoax - and all you supporters of him here followed suit, and were accusing everyone who 'hyped' the coronavirus of doing it to damage Trump.

Not really fair. Trump has two edges to his sword; to use the bully pulpit to salvage the economy and spread the health info from the experts. If the experts give him bad info, the naysayers attack him and not the source. Historical data means everything to these people, but not always for the right reasons.

He called it 'coronavirus hysteria' and a hoax. Is this bad info the "experts" gave him? No, this was his own decision, to treat the coronavirus as a conspiracy against him personally - because everything is about PR with him.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on April 04, 2020, 01:16:51 PM
ScottF,

here is the description of the model.  It is drastically simpler than I was expecting.  It is an ensemble of 'parameterized gaussian error functions' - basically they are simply fitting sigmoid curves to data using some assumptions, namely that social distancing has a similar effect as it had based on the data from Wuhan.  The estimate the sigmoids for each state (and some other regions).

Quote
where the function Y is the Gaussian error function(written explicitly above),p controls the maximum death rate at each location, t is the time since death rate exceeded 1e-15, ß(beta) is a location-specific inflection point(time at which rate of increase of the death rate is maximum), andα(alpha)is a location-specific growth parameter. Other sigmoidal functional forms (alternatives to Y) were considered but did not fit the data as well. Data were fit to the log of the death rate in the available data, using an optimization framework described in the appendix.

Quote
We either parametrized the level parameter p or the time-axis shift parameter beta to depend ona covariate based on time from when the initial death rate exceeds 1e-15to the implementation of social distancing. The value of the covariate multipliers in each type of model was assumed to closely follow the fit obtained from data from Wuhan, which is the time seriesto reach a stable statein the training dataset. To be specific, the generalizable information from Wuhan was the impact that social distancing had onmaximum death rate and time to reach the inflection point. For each type of model, we both considered ‘short-range’ and ‘long-range’ variants, to explain existing data and forecast long-term trends,respectively. In the former case, covariate multipliers could deviate from those fit to Wuhan, while in the latter, the data from Wuhan had a larger impact on the final covariate multiplier.At the draw level, welinearly interpolate between the models as we go from times where we have collected data already to long-term forecasts.Specifically, we take the weightedcombination of the daily increment of the log death rates from these models, with the weight linearly transitioning from short-range to long-range. The two remaining parameters (not modeled using covariates)were allowed to vary among locations to explain location-specific data.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.27.20043752v1.full.pdf

So not a huge fan of this model.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2020, 02:35:06 PM
First, a virus is different than the economy.

Second, we have very real data that  is extremely current on the economic conditions being created and the financial state of those going through it. We don’t need computer models and phd’s to understand this.

Third, we can look at history and see what happens when a country’s economy collapses.


I’m not saying it’s a certainty. I am looking at real data and real historical events as a guide and making the assumption that such events are still possible.

Fourth, we can look at history and see the response to the 1918 Influenza outbreak is directly comparable in a lot of ways. Including widespread lockdowns across the world. They survived it only minor economic impacts and even entered into the roaring 20's not long after.

They just didn't have all the fancy economic metrics we have today.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2020, 03:03:18 PM
I haven't seen the mortality rate from before Coronavirus was commented upon. Many of these Coronavirus deaths are from that same metric. I have heard that some people have died from it who have no underlying conditions, or are they just undiscovered underlying conditions? Data are very slippery things, and the numbers I've seen are flashy and well-quoted, but blatantly manipulated. When this all started, the deaths attributed to the yearly flu were also huge, but largely unconcerning when it came to reacting to it - just the normal, "get your flue shots." Only the Japanese and Chinese were walking around with masks. In China, that was because of the poor air quality, in Japan, it was more a social isolationism via culture.

I'm strongly suspicious there are genetic factors in play where people with certain markers have increased susceptibility to the virus as it enhances the ability of the virus to bind to certain cells within their body. So even absent pre-existing conditions, they're in a bad way. There is some research out there which has even identified likely culprits, but that information isn't likely to see MSM attention any time soon both because the peer-review process on that is going to take some time, and because of the broader implication of what that suggests for the future.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2020, 03:10:14 PM
As for your Fauci "quote": Daily Wire (https://www.dailywire.com/news/fauci-you-cant-rely-on-the-models-too-many-variables)
Quote
During a recent task force meeting, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and one of the team’s leading voices, called into question modeling projections in general, according to the Post’s sources.

“I’ve looked at all the models. I’ve spent a lot of time on the models. They don’t tell you anything. You can’t really rely upon models,” Dr. Fauci told other task force members this week, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the exchange.
Two questions:
1. This is likely a paraphrase, not a quote.  Do you think it possible that some nuances of language might have been lost when conveying this information to the media?

I think the biggest nuance is the models are trying to predict human behavior and humans are notorious for not behaving how others would like them to. We're difficult to model accurately in a simulation at the best of times. Throw in uncertainty bars about Covid19 itself and you're in for all kinds of fun times.

Models can help provide insight into what the likely best case and worst case scenarios are, but the reality is that you're likely to land somewhere in between and no model is likely to "get it right" at the end of the day when it comes to forecasting more than a couple days out. This is even more of a problem when they have inadequate testing for covid19 going on, so there is significant uncertainty about how widespread it is.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 04, 2020, 03:55:42 PM
I've researched some peer-reviewed data and learned something interesting. On a per-capita basis, people in Italy have historically been ~5 times more likely to die from the flu than those in the US.

Italy has had some truly brutal flu mortality numbers over the years, including ~25K flu-related deaths in 2016/17 alone. That would represent flu mortality of 135K in the US. The actual US flu mortality was 38K for the same period.

Italy is currently ~15K COVID-19 deaths and seems to have peaked from a growth rate.

I can't help but wonder what the venn diagram would look like when overlapping Italy's COVID-19 deaths with their seasonal flu deaths.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on April 04, 2020, 04:40:33 PM
ScottF,

Most of Italy does flu vaccination around 3% or less (Only 65+ age range have comparable vaccination to the US).  In the US most is in the 50% range. So their drastically higher death rate would be reasonable expectation based on their lack of vaccination.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/802426/rate-of-flu-vaccination-coverage-by-age-group-in-italy/

https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/immunize/coverage/NIS/National-Immunization-Survey-Flu-(NIS-Flu)/

Unfortunately since everyone lacks immunity to COVID-19, we can't expect the US to have 5x less COVID-19 deaths than Italy.  I do think we could have a much lower infection fatality rate due to other factors but even 50% lower infection fatality rate would be quite unlikely.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 04, 2020, 04:56:12 PM
"... and all you supporters of him here followed suit, and were accusing everyone who 'hyped' the coronavirus of doing it to damage Trump."

I will take exception to that as I was a screaming chicken little about this from the beginning and knew the sky was falling. And fallen it has. I knew the Trump administration botched it. The travel ban was too limited. Telling the general public not to wear masks made absolutely no sense whatsoever. In the same breath that the government said don't wear masks they said but do if you are infected and we all already knew asymptomatic people were spreading it which brings us to the testing issue and another massive failure to prepare. And I still support Trump for the most part. The borders need to be secure now more than ever. The only thing Trump has going for him is that the Democrats are still even worse. Biden didn't even want the limited travel ban Trump put in place and I don't remember any other Democrats calling for travel bans and travel restrictions which was exactly what we needed. They also distracted everyone including themselves with the impeachment debacle. Sure Trump shouldn't have let himself get distracted. He should have been on top of it anyway. He wasn't. He failed. He took it too lightly and he was dead wrong. But the same could be said about the Democrats in Congress. They all took their eyes off the ball and dropped it.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 04, 2020, 05:00:47 PM
Now on a positive note I just went shopping for groceries and I'd say about 80% of the people are now wearing masks. People are listening to what they're being told. They just need to be told the right thing. Before when our government said the general public should not wear masks I'd say it was maybe 30% wearing them. Our government actually made it seem like you were not patriotic if you wore a mask because the healthcare workers needed them. The public doesn't need the N95 though to keep from breathing out the virus as we talk in crowds. That should have been obvious from the beginning just like it's obvious right now. A cloth mask won't help a healthcare worker but it will help the asymptomatic carriers contain the amount and the distance their virus laden droplets travel out of their infected mouths.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 04, 2020, 05:07:55 PM
And right after I wrote that I see this. Timely.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/noble-lie-masks-coronavirus-never-104001181.html

"Those of you of a certain age will doubtless remember a time when it was universally acknowledged that wearing masks would not protect you or anyone else from the coronavirus pandemic. By "certain age" here I mean all living Americans born on or before April 1, 2020, which according to my notes is when it became possible to express a contrary position in polite society.

This was always nonsense. The White House is now suggesting that all of us should wear masks whenever we leave our houses...

Whether the journalists and other apparent experts who enthusiastically spread this apparent lie about masks knew it was false is very much an open question. Some of us found it odd that the same people were also saying that masks should be reserved for use by medical professionals. If masks don't do anything, why do doctors and nurses need them? Are they an ornamental part of a dress uniform? The mind reels.

Regardless of the personal honesty of those involved in it, this propaganda campaign should never have been conducted in the first place...

...We must put an end to the idea that the best way to get through this crisis is to say things we know are not true in the hope of getting people to behave a certain way. This means not saying masks are useless when what you really mean is, "Masks are in short supply, please consider before you start hoarding them whether you really need them at present and if so how many."
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 04, 2020, 05:09:57 PM
I will take exception to that as I was a screaming chicken little about this from the beginning and knew the sky was falling.

Touché. Apologies.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on April 04, 2020, 08:22:27 PM
It has always been the position of the WHO and CDC that wearing a mask can prevent spreading infection to other people and they have always recommended it for symptomatic individuals.  What they haven't recommended is that all people wear masks.

Wearing a mask may give some protection, but it may result in people thinking that masks make them safe - and thus reduce their social distancing; increase the number of trips they make, and other risky behaviors.

Also for hospital settings, the evidence is that cloth masks may actually be worse than no mask as far as contracting disease - probably because cloth masks give a false sense of security, but also they increase touching of face and are a poor barrier against smaller respiratory particles (which are important when you are physically close to someone).

So cloth mask + social distancing is probably a net win.

But if people start thinking that masks make them safe and increase risky behavior - particularly reduce their social distancing or number of trips  - could actually be worse.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2020, 10:09:03 PM
I have to wonder how many of those 80% are going to follow all of the guidelines. It's not as simple as wear a mask. From one site:

While some of these are more specific to surgical masks, most apply.


How to Put the Mask On
Wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. Dry your hands with a clean paper towel and throw the paper towel away.

Check the mask for any defects such as a tear or missing tie or ear loop. Throw away any that are defective.

Make sure the exterior (usually yellow or blue) side of the mask is facing out, away from your face.

Place the mask on your face with the blue side facing out and the stiff, bendable edge at the top by your nose.

If the mask has ear loops, put one loop around each ear.

If the mask has ties, pick up the mask by the ties and tie the upper ties behind your head with a bow.

Once the mask is in place, use your index finger and thumb to pinch the bendable top edge of the mask around the bridge of your nose.

If the mask has a lower tie, then once the mask is fitted to the bridge of your nose, tie the lower ties behind your head with a bow.

Make sure the mask is completely secure. Make sure it covers your nose and mouth so that the bottom edge is under your chin.

Wash your hands.

 

Removing the Mask
Wash your hands before removing the mask.

Do not touch the inside of the mask (the part over nose and mouth). It may be contaminated from your breathing, coughing or sneezing.

Untie or remove the ear loops and remove the mask by the straps.

Throw the mask in the trash.

Wash your hands.

Please Note: If you are using a reusable cloth mask, at the end of the day, take the mask off from the straps (not touching the front), place in a pillowcase to keep the ties with the mask. Wash it in the washing machine with hot water and completely dry on medium or high heat.​
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 05, 2020, 05:44:12 AM
The main point is that it has to be 100% of people wearing masks to really do the trick. If one person isn't wearing a mask and they happen to be the asymptomatic super spreader then they are putting the virus into the air and getting it onto the masks of everyone who may touch their mask and infect themselves or what have you. But if that asymptomatic super spreader is also wearing a mask then the amount of virus they put into the air and the distance it travels is tremendously reduced so when the other people who don't have it maybe goof up and not handle their masks perfectly it doesn't matter because the virus never got onto their mask in the first place. It stayed in the super spreader's mask or in relatively close proximity instead of getting spewed out and picked up on ventilation currents just hanging around in the air for someone to walk into it or inhale it. Even after people recover and are therefore presumably immune and can't spread it they should still wear masks, not because they are a danger to anyone but just to enforce complete social compliance and make the people not wearing masks the odd ones out, banned from grocery stores and subject to fines like in some Asian countries. And again, it doesn't even have to be N95 masks. Cloth masks like even an old shirt will do to keep the virus from spreading as much or as far. It's the same principle as coughing or sneezing into your sleeve, and the mask helps with that too for people who forget, don't care, or have slow reflexes.

There was the heartbreaking story of the bus driver who went on a viral rant because an elderly lady got on his bus and was coughing all over the place without covering her mouth. If she had been wearing a mask it probably would have helped a lot. Certainly wouldn't have hurt. The corona virus killed that poor man shortly afterwards.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 05, 2020, 08:48:33 AM
First, a virus is different than the economy.

Second, we have very real data that  is extremely current on the economic conditions being created and the financial state of those going through it. We don’t need computer models and phd’s to understand this.

Third, we can look at history and see what happens when a country’s economy collapses.


I’m not saying it’s a certainty. I am looking at real data and real historical events as a guide and making the assumption that such events are still possible.

Fourth, we can look at history and see the response to the 1918 Influenza outbreak is directly comparable in a lot of ways. Including widespread lockdowns across the world. They survived it only minor economic impacts and even entered into the roaring 20's not long after.

They just didn't have all the fancy economic metrics we have today.

How long were the lockdown efforts? As best I can find, about 4 weeks, 5 in some cities. We’re about three weeks in now, no end in sight.  So comparing to 1918, we need to be looking at ending this next week. We won’t.  We are seriously looking at another 4 weeks and could even see another 8.

I would also suggest that American society and economy today is not the same as it was 100 years ago (medical care too). Things have changed a bit.

It’s amusing that we are starting to see stories in the MSM that the lockdown actually helped the economy then.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 05, 2020, 08:59:30 AM
It's too bad everyone wasn't required to wear at least improvised masks from the get go. Masks at churches, masks at choir practice, masks at conventions, masks in hotel lobbies, masks on planes, trains, and in taxis. We can never know for sure now but I'd be willing to bet most of the people now infected would not have been. There wouldn't even be the shortage of N95s because the healthcare workers wouldn't need them as much since not as many people would be infected. I'd even go so far as to say that with mandatory masking we could get back to a much greater semblance of normalcy much more quickly. Dine-in restaurants would still be out and maybe a few other problematic things like that but by and large our society and economy could get back on track in relatively short order. And I could certainly be mistaken. Maybe it wouldn't make that much of a difference. But there is thing we know for sure. We tried having our government tell the general public not to wear masks and that failed miserably, fatally. Trying the exact opposite is certainly worth a shot.

And to be clear 100% masking is not a substitute for social distancing and hand washing and other mitigation measures. It's not an either/or but an and.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on April 05, 2020, 10:52:19 AM
cherry,

people wearing masks reduce other compliance behavior.  Also asymtompatic is fairly minor source of contaigon.  Vast majority of spread is from people who have cold like symptoms which WHO and CDC have recommended wear masks the entire time - and symptomatic people haven't - many people in the US simply believed that it was a hoax and wasn't a problem until it had spread so much and the recent rapid increase in deaths; or believed it was 'just another flu' and thus not worth worrying about.

We have our own resident skeptics who have been posting articles implying that the NY hospitals are faking it to create a scare - and that wasn't posted very long ago.

People who have been social distancing and hand washing aren't the people who are spreading this, they are already the ones who wear a mask if they get symptoms.  It is the people who have completely been ignoring it and think it is a hoax; who have been gather with their friends; going to social events like church; or going to parties etc.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 05, 2020, 11:08:21 AM
"... people wearing masks reduce other compliance behavior."

I'm not getting the logic here. The people who were acting in non-compliant ways like going to churches, funerals, choir practice, and so on were not wearing masks anyway. If they were going to insist on being non-compliant on social distancing, it wouldn't have hurt to have them at least wear masks. Look at that Korean woman who went to the church where masks weren't allowed and super-spread it to dozens or maybe hundreds.

I agree that if people were told if you are going to this church service then you can go if everyone wears a mask then that is counter-productive. The service should not be allowed to be held at all. But... if they are going to go anyway then would it be better if everyone at least had masks than not? If people are going to be riding on buses and trains and subways anyway then surely it's better that they all wear masks than just breathe all over each other and cough and sneeze willy nilly all over the place like that lady did on the bus and had the bus driver die. And especially in the grocery stores. People still have to go there. Masks should be required.

I disagree about the asymptomatic carriers being a minor source of contagion. Time is telling but the latest word I'm seeing is that they are a much bigger source than was previously suspected. Of course I suspected it all along. It's really the only thing that makes sense to explain how fast this is spreading.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 05, 2020, 11:42:31 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/face-masks-how-the-trump-administration-went-from-no-need-to-put-one-on-to-fight-coronavirus-185852253.html

The Key:

"A study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medicine found that viral particles “can remain viable in aerosols for multiple hours,” perhaps for as many as three. That makes it imperative to keep those particles from becoming airborne in the first place."



Many people in Asia have long worn such masks as a matter of routine, especially when traveling, and have faced social stigma for doing so. Now, however, that practice appears to have been vindicated.

“It’s a civic duty,” one Chinese student living in New York told Time magazine earlier this month. “If I have a mask on,” she explained, “I could cut the chain off where I am. That could save a lot of people.”
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 05, 2020, 12:14:43 PM
And away we go...

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/texas-city-mandates-people-wear-155328581.html

Should you wear a mask during the coronavirus pandemic? The city of Laredo, Texas, has decided that yes, you do. And if you don’t wear one, they could fine you.

The city’s emergency mandate, which went into effect on April 2, states that every person over the age of five must wear “some form of covering over their nose and mouth” when using public transportation, taxis, ride shares, pumping gas or when inside a building open to the public. That face covering can include a homemade mask, scarf, bandana or handkerchief. The penalty for violating the order is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine up to $1,000.

The rule does not apply to people who are riding in “a personal vehicle,” who are alone in “a separate single space,” who are engaging in “permissible outside physical activity,” who are alone with their household members or who are eating food. It also doesn’t apply if when wearing a face covering poses a health, safety or security risk to the individual. Laredo’s mandate is reportedly the first in the U.S. to enforce the wearing of face coverings.

------------------------------------------------------


They look like a city of outlaws but appearances aside it's a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on April 05, 2020, 07:44:20 PM
...We have our own resident skeptics who have been posting articles implying that the NY hospitals are faking it to create a scare - and that wasn't posted very long ago.

Must have happened before i started posting here, because i don't remember anyone fantasizing about a perfect world. Most early posts seemed to be about the blame game, and the things that might have been pointed to were just reaction to accusatory attacks.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 05, 2020, 08:44:57 PM
...We have our own resident skeptics who have been posting articles implying that the NY hospitals are faking it to create a scare - and that wasn't posted very long ago.

Must have happened before i started posting here, because i don't remember anyone fantasizing about a perfect world. Most early posts seemed to be about the blame game, and the things that might have been pointed to were just reaction to accusatory attacks.
No, you were here; maybe your filters are too strong...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 06, 2020, 01:22:45 AM
I don’t think hotspots like NYC are faking anything. That said, the IMHE model remains a major source in the decision to shut down the country and has been proven to be grossly inaccurate.

So one fairly reasonable way to interpret this is that millions of Americans are now unemployed due to wildly inaccurate forecasts on healthcare surges that have not happened.

And (I know I’m a broken record here) the model was created WITH the assumptions of full shut down and social distancing in place, not “do nothing”.

So the real questions are:

1. Are we making wholesale “flattening the curve” decisions solely on the IMHE model?
2. If not, what data are we basing these decisions on?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 06, 2020, 02:07:24 AM
I actually took a look at IMHE model for my state. we're actually way ahead of the curve they've set for my state, or at least we were earlier today(looks like they just updated out stats). Idaho wasn't supposed to have 10 deaths until the 9th, we had 10 yesterday. They also were projecting us to not peak until the end of the month, but since our daily new case reports went from 222 to 122 to 64 to 24 by the time they updated it tonight we're now set to hit peak hospital usage in 8 days.

Of course, the Idaho numbers deserve an asterisk, and many other states are likely in the same place:

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2020/04/pregnant-mother-hospitalized-at-eirmc-with-coronavirus-husband-speaks-out-about-lack-of-testing/

Keep in mind, the wife was the first "community spread" case documented in their county.

Quote
EIN:Can you tell me about how all of this started? When did your wife know she was sick, and what were her symptoms?

Jeremy:It would be about 12 days ago (March 22 or 23) when Kimberly first started noticing symptoms. It started with body aches, fatigue and chills.

EIN:How did she go about getting tested, and have the symptoms changed over time?

Jeremy:The only reason Kimberly was tested was because her (obstetrician) required her to be tested if she had symptoms before going to an appointment. We didn’t expect it to be anything other than the flu because we had been self-isolated since (March 13) with very minimal contact with others.

We went to our family doctor, and she and I came up negative for the flu. We wanted to be tested for COVID-19 after that. The only way we would have been able to get a direct test of COVID-19 was if we had a positive contact with someone who had it, or had been traveling, so our doctor wasn’t allowed to do that until after we had done a full respiratory panel of tests that covers over a dozen different viruses.

That test is really expensive, but since Kim had already hit her deductible with her pregnancy, we went ahead and had her do the full panel, while I passed it up. That was (March 27). On (April 1), we got a call from our doctor telling us Kimberly had tested positive for COVID-19.

Her symptoms had continued to get worse over time. Kimberly started to get a cough that would on occasion cause her to vomit. A fever set in, and she would wake up covered in sweat and then freeze the next minute. Her fatigue got so extreme, she would almost pass out just from getting up or trying to help out with a chore around the house.

The last day or two before taking her to the hospital, her oxygen saturation was dropping into the low 90s, and any deep breathes would cause pain. She was ready to give up because the pain, discomfort and constant dizziness was making life so miserable.

EIN:Do you have any idea when or where you might have contracted the virus?

Jeremy: When (Eastern Idaho Public Health District) contacted us, they only (discussed Kimberly’s activities) a few days before her symptoms started. So based on their investigation, it must have occurred while we were at the grocery story when we did a milk/bread run.

At the time we went to the store, there were still zero confirmed cases in Bonneville County, and only a handful of cases within several hours of here. We felt we were safe to go out. Kimberly refused to touch anything as she walked along with me.

She didn’t even push the cart after I had wiped the push bar down liberally. Now we know that incubation could be longer than a few days, so we would like to also point out that before that instance, we had been to three total grocery stores in the two weeks before her symptoms began.

EIN:Is the rest of your family sick? How do their symptoms compare to your wife? Have they been able to be tested, and if not, do you thinking testing would still be beneficial?

Jeremy: I’m a 36-year-old man. I started having symptoms six days ago with body aches, the worst I have ever experienced. With that came a cough, brain fog, major fatigue, minor congestion and a fever of 104.5. I can’t taste, smell and don’t have an appetite. There is also nausea that seems to be resolved by eating or drinking.

Also, there is a strange lingering sensation in my head that I can’t describe. If I try to put my glasses on, it makes me want to throw up. It’s very strange.

(The six children range in age from 17 to 3. All but one child is experiencing at least some of the same symptoms.)

No one else has been tested in my family. I called the doctor yesterday to see if we could all get tested, and we were denied, not by the doctor, but by protocol, because we are all assumed to have it now.

Yet we are not counted toward any total
.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 06, 2020, 07:39:16 AM
1. Are we making wholesale “flattening the curve” decisions solely on the IMHE model?
2. If not, what data are we basing these decisions on?
No - there are numerous studies, including the Imperial College study which seems to have triggered action in both the USA and the UK, and the world is also looking to other countries' experiences, like those in China, Italy and Iran, for data points.

You do realize, though, that the numbers in IHME, which are based on self-isolation of the population, if too high would actually argue against suppression, since if they showed insufficient benefits, the model would suggest a high cost for a smaller benefit.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 06, 2020, 11:22:34 AM
You do realize, though, that the numbers in IHME, which are based on self-isolation of the population, if too high would actually argue against suppression, since if they showed insufficient benefits, the model would suggest a high cost for a smaller benefit.

This is already what the model is potentially suggesting, so yeah.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 06, 2020, 11:29:55 AM
Interesting article on genome testing to determine genetic susceptibility to the virus.

"COVID-19, caused by the new pandemic coronavirus, is strangely—and tragically—selective."

I wonder if we will eventually discover that certain "races" (ie groups of humans with similar genetic traits) are vastly more susceptible/resistant than others. Similar studies have shown that there are people with genetic makeup that makes them highly resistant to HIV.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/how-sick-will-coronavirus-make-you-answer-may-be-your-genes
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 06, 2020, 12:13:30 PM
Scott, as far as predictions, I think you might be missing the caveat in most cases. News organizations are saying "possibly as many as X thousand" with isn't the same as predicting that will happen.

IMHE model (https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections)

So right now they are projecting a peak in NY (state) of between 14,462 and 45,025 hospital beds needed, and a median of 25,486.

Are you saying that the numbers will fall short of the modeled minimum? Because if they fall within the range, the prediction cannot be said to be wrong.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on April 06, 2020, 12:33:36 PM
Interesting article on genome testing to determine genetic susceptibility to the virus.

"COVID-19, caused by the new pandemic coronavirus, is strangely—and tragically—selective."

I wonder if we will eventually discover that certain "races" (ie groups of humans with similar genetic traits) are vastly more susceptible/resistant than others. Similar studies have shown that there are people with genetic makeup that makes them highly resistant to HIV.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/how-sick-will-coronavirus-make-you-answer-may-be-your-genes

It isn't really 'strangely selective'  - It evolved to bind with the ACE2 receptor.  There will be variation throughout the population of the receptor and that variation will be based on ancestry.  Whatever ancestry happens to have a slightly more similar ACE2 receptor to the host mammals in evolved in (which also will hand variation throughout their population) will likiely be most succeptible.

Given time a variant will probably occur that infects these 'less succeptible' individuals.

Most of this population variation are simply caused by drift rather than selective pressure, as long as the receptor binding is 'good enough' it gets passed on.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 06, 2020, 01:03:16 PM
Scott, as far as predictions, I think you might be missing the caveat in most cases. News organizations are saying "possibly as many as X thousand" with isn't the same as predicting that will happen.

IMHE model (https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections)

So right now they are projecting a peak in NY (state) of between 14,462 and 45,025 hospital beds needed, and a median of 25,486.

Are you saying that the numbers will fall short of the modeled minimum? Because if they fall within the range, the prediction cannot be said to be wrong.


NYC's new hospital admissions just fell off a cliff:

https://twitter.com/bespokeinvest/status/1247194815160291328/photo/1

From a former NYT reporter:

If the trends of the last few days weren't clear enough, Cuomo's press conference today leaves no room for doubt: new hospitalizations in New York, the center of the epidemic, fell to 358 - a 75% drop in four days.

This is likely to unwind fast now. We will all be told how wonderful it is that we've dodged a bullet, that the lockdowns worked.  And, as we've already been seeing there will every effort to count every COVID death, to get the number as high as possible.

"When you hear all this: Remember time lags. Remember how we count (or don't bother to count) flu deaths. Remember the media and political panic of the last three weeks. Remember how we trashed the Constitution.

Remember what we've done to our economy, how we've put more than 10,000,000 Americans - probably closer to 20,000,000 - out of work. Remember the choices we've made, and why we made them. Demand answers. Demand accountability."

I don't necessarily subscribe to all of this, but I've had this weird feeling (as many have) that things are not as they seemed.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 06, 2020, 01:37:33 PM
NYC's new hospital admissions just fell off a cliff:

https://twitter.com/bespokeinvest/status/1247194815160291328/photo/1

From a former NYT reporter:

If the trends of the last few days weren't clear enough, Cuomo's press conference today leaves no room for doubt: new hospitalizations in New York, the center of the epidemic, fell to 358 - a 75% drop in four days.

Are perhaps many hospitals already full, that's why fewer "no new hospitalization", because some hospitals are turning people away no matter how many need it?

Or are people assuming that the criteria for receiving a hospital bed have remained the same, so this number actually represents the needs to a bed?

Quote
This is likely to unwind fast now. We will all be told how wonderful it is that we've dodged a bullet, that the lockdowns worked.  And, as we've already been seeing there will every effort to count every COVID death, to get the number as high as possible.

When people make predictions, I'd like them to be as unambiguous predictions as possible, so they can't easily weasel out of saying "my prediction was wrong".

What range of actual coronavirus-caused deaths do you anticipate for the USA?

I anticipate more than 50,000 deaths in the USA before July (as listed in https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries). If they're less than that, my prediction will have been wrong.

What's the range of deaths that you anticipate by the end of June?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 06, 2020, 02:19:19 PM
You do realize, though, that the numbers in IHME, which are based on self-isolation of the population, if too high would actually argue against suppression, since if they showed insufficient benefits, the model would suggest a high cost for a smaller benefit.

This is already what the model is potentially suggesting, so yeah.
OK... so by arguing that the IHME numbers are too high, and that the true fatalities and infections as a result of suppression methods would in fact be much lower than those of the IHME model, are you suggesting the suppression methods should be strictly enforced since the resulting cost / benefit analysis even more strongly supports suppression?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 06, 2020, 02:45:05 PM
NYC's new hospital admissions just fell off a cliff:

https://twitter.com/bespokeinvest/status/1247194815160291328/photo/1

From a former NYT reporter:

If the trends of the last few days weren't clear enough, Cuomo's press conference today leaves no room for doubt: new hospitalizations in New York, the center of the epidemic, fell to 358 - a 75% drop in four days.

Are perhaps many hospitals already full, that's why fewer "no new hospitalization", because some hospitals are turning people away no matter how many need it?

Or are people assuming that the criteria for receiving a hospital bed have remained the same, so this number actually represents the needs to a bed?

Quote
This is likely to unwind fast now. We will all be told how wonderful it is that we've dodged a bullet, that the lockdowns worked.  And, as we've already been seeing there will every effort to count every COVID death, to get the number as high as possible.

When people make predictions, I'd like them to be as unambiguous predictions as possible, so they can't easily weasel out of saying "my prediction was wrong".

What range of actual coronavirus-caused deaths do you anticipate for the USA?

I anticipate more than 50,000 deaths in the USA before July (as listed in https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries). If they're less than that, my prediction will have been wrong.

What's the range of deaths that you anticipate by the end of June?

I'm entirely unqualified to make statistical epidemiologic predictions and (I don't think) I've ever made any. That would be foolish.  Are you saying unless people are willing to make predictions, they should refrain from sharing data and their opinions on that data?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 06, 2020, 02:50:26 PM
OK... so by arguing that the IHME numbers are too high, and that the true fatalities and infections as a result of suppression methods would in fact be much lower...

No, this is the conclusion you're making and assuming I'm forwarding. It's not. I simply said that the model factored in suppression methods and therefore can't contribute it's inaccuracies to those factors.

Is your argument that even a bad model that promotes good behavior is better than an accurate model that may not? I'll admit I could be losing the thread here.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 06, 2020, 03:21:31 PM
I'm entirely unqualified to make statistical epidemiologic predictions and (I don't think) I've ever made any. That would be foolish.  Are you saying unless people are willing to make predictions, they should refrain from sharing data and their opinions on that data?

It seems you do want to make predictions like "This is likely to unwind fast now", but you don't want to make them remotely specific about what that means, so that regardless whether there'll be 20,000 deaths, or 2 million deaths, you can subsequently proclaim that you were correct and that it did "unwind fast".

If you're making a prediction (as you did), make it specific and falsifiable. Make it clear what sort of thing will prove you were right in your opinion, and what sort of thing would mean that you were wrong.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 06, 2020, 03:24:50 PM
I was quoting someone else, per my post.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 06, 2020, 03:26:28 PM
I think I see where the confusion might be, some of it's in quote some not. It's all from the same source. Apologies for formatting poorly.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 06, 2020, 03:32:06 PM
I think I see where the confusion might be, some of it's in quote some not. It's all from the same source. Apologies for formatting poorly.

Ah, okay. Yes, I had thought "This is likely to unwind fast now." were your own words.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on April 06, 2020, 03:40:02 PM
No, this is the conclusion you're making and assuming I'm forwarding. It's not. I simply said that the model factored in suppression methods and therefore can't contribute it's inaccuracies to those factors.

It isn't doing any real modeling.  They assume that the sigmoid for every place will match the sigmoid for Wuhan.  The sigmoid for Wuhan is a result of quarantine etc.  It went from little or no measures to extreme measures.  In the US it has been consistently slowly implemented measures without any extreme measures, so the curves will be quite different.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 06, 2020, 03:44:47 PM
No, this is the conclusion you're making and assuming I'm forwarding. It's not. I simply said that the model factored in suppression methods and therefore can't contribute it's inaccuracies to those factors.

It isn't doing any real modeling.  They assume that the sigmoid for every place will match the sigmoid for Wuhan.  The sigmoid for Wuhan is a result of quarantine etc.  It went from little or no measures to extreme measures.  In the US it has been consistently slowly implemented measures without any extreme measures, so the curves will be quite different.

I'll take your word on the mechanics. It's being ubiquitously referred to as a model, regardless of how poorly it's been implemented.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 06, 2020, 03:50:57 PM
Boris Johnson is now in an intensive care unit.

If he dies of it, he'll probably be the most famous person yet to be killed by the coronavirus, I think.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on April 06, 2020, 05:17:09 PM
I'll take your word on the mechanics. It's being ubiquitously referred to as a model, regardless of how poorly it's been implemented.

It is a model, it is a sigmoid function.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function

or logistic function

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function

but they use a slightly different formulation called the error function

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_function

Basically it is three parts,

Quote
Exponential Growth Phase
    Initially, population growth will be slow (lag period) as there are few reproductive individuals that are likely widely dispersed
    As numbers accumulate, there is a rapid increase in population size as natality greatly exceeds mortality
    Mortality is low because there are abundant resources and minimal environmental resistance

Transitional Phase
    As the population continues to grow, resources eventually become limited, which leads to competition for survival
    Natality rates start to fall and mortality rates begin to rise, leading to a slowing of population growth

Plateau Phase
    Eventually the increasing mortality rate equals the natality rate and population growth becomes static
    The population has reached the carrying capacity (κ) of the environment, with limiting factors keeping the population stable
    The population size at this point will not be constant, but will oscillate around the carrying capacity to remain even

https://ib.bioninja.com.au/options/option-c-ecology-and-conser/c5-population-ecology/sigmoid-growth-curve.html

Transition and Plateau occur either due to social distancing etc. limiting available people to spread to, or herd immunity, so many people are infected there aren't new hosts to jump to.

You can tweak a few constants but it is an extremely simple model.  It isn't what most people think of when they say 'model'.  Something so simple has the benefit of being really easy to understand, but it is completely incapable of being responsive to more complex variables.

It really isn't "poorly implemented" - it is just a limitation of model choice.  There are more sophisticated models available, but more sophisticated models you get lots more combinations of choices of constants that can increase model spread (number of combinations of variables consistent with observations) without some way to constrain them or if you misunderstand something about how the infection or population behave can give really bad results.

This is the classic 'all models are wrong, some are useful'.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 06, 2020, 06:42:08 PM
Interesting article on genome testing to determine genetic susceptibility to the virus.

"COVID-19, caused by the new pandemic coronavirus, is strangely—and tragically—selective."

I wonder if we will eventually discover that certain "races" (ie groups of humans with similar genetic traits) are vastly more susceptible/resistant than others. Similar studies have shown that there are people with genetic makeup that makes them highly resistant to HIV.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/how-sick-will-coronavirus-make-you-answer-may-be-your-genes
I believe I've alluded to that article in here, although I may not have linked to it. I was certainly aware of it. The problem with that kind of study is Pandora's box isn't far behind in regards to what the information can lead to.

It does seem to me that there are either genetic or environmental factors in play in some of the deaths that are being reported. Given the overall probabilities that exist across the population, the odds of seeing "clusters" where a single biological family unit will see multiple children, one parent, and an an aunt/uncle(sibling to the decease parent) die to Covid19 are pretty low, yet it's happened a few times now.

Granted when dealing with large numbers it would be even more exceptional if such an event did NOT happen as well. It is the "it's happened multiple times" aspect which points to a likely genetic component. And as we know our genome influences our immune system, it's entirely reasonable to start looking there.

The theory surrounding ACE2 seems reasonable to my layman understanding. There are a number of other markers that were identified over a month ago which could be either helpful or harmful in regards to surviving Covid19, but the challenge is that they're in the "models suggest" stage of proof, and will be a long time being demonstrated clinically.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on April 06, 2020, 07:00:38 PM
There is evidence that severity is proportional to initial viral load, so clusters could occur due to things like shared habits (some families are less hygenic perhaps they all sneeze into their hands, or have more frequent demonstrations of affection via touch) or could be due to things like poverty (smaller shared space concentrates virus and increases risk), or could be genetic because of increased viral load in they body (weaker immune response, better ACE2 binding, or lesser/greater mucus production; greater likelihood of sneezing).  So lots of possible genetic and non genetic explanations of clusters of death.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 06, 2020, 07:44:35 PM
Here's a wilder one with regards to machine learning:

https://www.genengnews.com/news/prototype-ai-tool-predicts-which-coronavirus-patients-are-most-likely-to-develop-severe-disease/
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on April 06, 2020, 08:35:19 PM
Here's a wilder one with regards to machine learning:

https://www.genengnews.com/news/prototype-ai-tool-predicts-which-coronavirus-patients-are-most-likely-to-develop-severe-disease/

With a training sample of 50, I wouldn't trust that at all.  When people deal with small sample sizes, they frequently do errors that leak information from their test cases, or they have a small enough test sample size that it the results are easily due to chance.  Looks like all models got 70% plus except logistic regression.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on April 06, 2020, 09:50:15 PM
...This is the classic 'all models are wrong, some are useful'.

All the flu modeling I've seen have followed a bell-shaped curve. Most models are seasonal, as well. Why is this one so much different?
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on April 06, 2020, 10:33:35 PM
Here is a good paper that describes the various modeling approaches, and the various trade offs of the models,

Quote
Complexity v.s. Accuracy.We seek for a well-balance between the model com-plexity  and  fitting  accuracy.   Neither  too  complicated  models  with  too  many  freeparameters and unverified mechanisms nor over simplified models without sufficientcapability to mimic the real complicated situations and all available data is welcomed.This issue is also closely related to the over-fitting and under-fitting problem met innumerics.

Fitting v.s.  Prediction.It  is  a  very  one-sided  pursuit  of  the  lowest  fitting  er-rors (measured by MSE, RMSE, correlation coefficients,etc.)  for a predictive model,though it is always the case in most published works!  In fact, there are tremendousevidences to show that the best fitting does not always lead to the best forecast (seeFig.   S3  in  SI  for  example).   Just  as  an  old  Chinese  proverb  says,  going  too  far  isas bad as falling short.  So we need to make a trade-off between the short-term bestfittings  and  long-term  promising  predictions.   A  more  reasonable  choice  in  practicewould be the statistical average of all possible results according to their weights (e.g.the Boltzmann factor).

Robustness v.s.  Sensitivity.On  one  hand,  we  hope  our  model  be  sensitive  toparameter changes in order to model the influence of different situations and strategies, to pick out the best fitting parameters,etc.On the other hand, the model is expectedto be robust (insensitive in other words) to against perturbations coming from varioussources,  such as numerical errors,  data noise,  incomplete knowledge about epidemicmechanisms,etc.Obviously,  these  are  two  opposite  pursuits  just  like  two  sides  ofthe  same  coin  and  can  not  be  optimized  simultaneously.   So  that  we  need  to  relaxour requirement on model robustness and sensitivity, and focus on the reproducibilityof key dynamical features (like the inflection point,  half time,etc.),  the asymptoticstability (basic/effective reproduction numberR0), the bifurcation point,etc.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.05666.pdf

wmLambert - when you see a bell curve - they are generally plotting daily new cases or active cases.  This pandemic will also have a bell curve of daily new cases/active cases.  When you see a picture of 'flattening the curve' it is the daily new cases/active case they are talking about.  Right now we are simply on the left side of the curve where it is still growing rapidly.  Some places will hit a peak and then hopefully begin to decline.  Influenza hits its peak because of herd immunity, so many people are vaccinated or naturally immune from a previous years infection that it has difficult finding new victims.  Since there is no natural immunity and no vaccination to a 'novel virus' like COVID-19, it has a really long growth period before it peaks.  We can cause it to peak early or slower by social distancing and other behavior that make spread of the virus more difficult.  However, until herd immunity occurs or we develop a vaccine and wide spread vaccination occurs - any time we quit social distancing and other mitigation measures - if the virus is still in population, it will start exponential growth again.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 06, 2020, 10:40:19 PM
...This is the classic 'all models are wrong, some are useful'.

All the flu modeling I've seen have followed a bell-shaped curve. Most models are seasonal, as well. Why is this one so much different?

This virus doesn't seem as sensitive to temperature. It is also has a higher baseline contagiousness. Combined those mean we can't expect a big summer reprieve. Flu spread is also slowed by the 40%-50% of people who get vaccinated.   

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 07, 2020, 08:02:24 AM
Quote
The link between suicide and unemployment is already well known. According to a 2013 study by Timothy J. Classen and Richard A. Dunn, unemployment duration is the biggest factor in increased risk of suicide, but mass layoffs are “powerful localized events where suicide risk increases shortly afterward.”

They estimated “one additional suicide death for every 4,200 males” and “one additional suicide death for every 7,100 females” who lost their job in a mass layoff. Using the Federal Reserve’s projection of 31 percent unemployment of the U.S. labor force gives us just more than 51 million unemployed Americans. Using a male-to-female worker ratio of 53/47, that level of unemployment, particularly if prolonged, could result in an estimated additional 3,258 women and 6,211 men taking their lives.*

That means we’re roughly at parity for WuFlu and suicide deaths that will result from the 10 million layoffs of the last two weeks. As the layoffs continue, with a dose of hysteria far beyond regular layoffs, the economic conditions we created very well may result in more deaths than the virus.

Quote
Last week, Knox County in Tennessee reported more suicides than COVID-19 deaths, a total of nine suicides within 48 hours.

And it goes for years

Quote
General risk of death increases after mass layoffs as well. A 2009 study on Pennsylvania’s oil crisis and recession in the ’80s found that the chances of dying doubled for men who were victims of mass layoffs in the year following the job loss. Two decades later, they were still at a greater risk of early death.

Other health issues are created

Quote
A researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health analyzed detailed employment and health data from 8,125 individuals.… Workers who lost a job through no fault of their own, she found, were twice as likely to report developing a new ailment like high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease over the next year and a half, compared with people who were continuously employed.

And it’s broader than you think

Quote
The economic crisis of 2008-10, and the rise in unemployment that accompanied it, was associated with more than 260,000 excess cancer-related deaths — including many considered treatable — within the Organization for Economic Development (OECD), according to a study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Imperial College London, and Oxford University.

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: rightleft22 on April 07, 2020, 10:17:00 AM
I hear what your saying Crunch and I agree we should be concerned with how the economic and joblessness will impact health. Its a variable that should be added to the models. 
Personally I think that we are going to have to find away to balance protecting the vulnerable the health care works and keep people working.
I wish this was something we could talk about without it being political. This is not a either or, blue or red issue.

I've been watching Switzerland as they try to find that balance. They may in time experience a surge but so far their heath care system has been able to handle the situation and  still have buffer, while avoiding a full lock down. My feeling is that when this comes to a end they will have experienced similar percentage of deaths as most countries while not having experienced as much of the economic pain. I could be wrong and wound't bet the lives of anyone on that so not I'm no help.     
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 07, 2020, 10:31:38 AM
Geneva is not New York, Chicago or Los Angeles.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 07, 2020, 10:47:51 AM
I've been looking more into the efforts of broad serological (antibody) tests. Looks like FDA approved the first one on April 2nd and now it's a race to get them out.  https://www.fda.gov/media/136625/download

Results are apparently more accurate than the std virus test and available under 15 minutes.

Unlike the standard virus test, a titer test can be used against random sample groups to determine overall population exposure.

First tests should be on front line people, but then you could test groups of people at various locations and based on results can estimate overall infection rates. If tests indicate a broad infection rate (~50% was mentioned) there can be serious discussions about loosening restrictions, as those levels would be getting close to herd immunity numbers.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 07, 2020, 10:53:12 AM
And as for me not buying the virus hype...

Initially, 2.2 million could die in US because of coronavirus.

1 week later -100,000-200,000 could die

1 week later, Fauci: "I've looked at all the models, I've spent a lot of time on the models. They don't tell you anything. You can't really rely on models"

And now just a few days later ...

Quote
As of Monday, the model predicted the virus will kill 81,766 people in the United States over the next four months, with just under 141,000 hospital beds being needed. That's about 12,000 fewer deaths -- and 121,000 fewer hospital beds -- than the model estimated on Thursday.

Why? Because the models were largely based on bull*censored*:

Quote
Early versions of the model had little data on how patients fared after being hospitalized in the United States, but the version released Monday includes more granular information now available from state governments.

Quote
A "massive infusion of new data" led to the adjustments, according to the model's maker, Dr. Christopher Murray, who serves as director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington School of Medicine

Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 07, 2020, 11:41:38 AM
I've got a good feeling that with everyone wearing masks in crowded areas we're going to see the rates of infection fall significantly.

We've been through most of this already but I'm going to rehash it just for crystal clarity and anyone can tell me if I'm wrong.

In a way the worry about the uninfected person getting their cloth masks infected is misplaced; the worry about how if you're uninfected you're going to touch your mask that was clean when you left the house but got infected out in public and then you infect yourself misses the point. Sure go through the proper motions to avoid cross contamination and all that but that's not what the masks are really doing here.

They are to keep infected people from spreading the virus so much and so far. So the people with the infected masks are already infected. Their masks are infected. Their hands are probably infected. Their whole house and car is infected. When they touch their infected mask with their infected hands it doesn't matter because it's all already infected anyway. They just aren't putting as much of that infection out into the air as they would without the mask.

And if you aren't infected the mask doesn't do much if anything to protect you and that's fine. As stated many times your cloth mask doesn't let you walk into a room full of maskless infected people and remain uninfected. But if you walk into a room full of masked infected people even though your mask is doing little or nothing to help you, their masks are. Hopefully your mask is not getting infected because the infected people have their masks on and their infection isn't getting airborne as much so isn't landing on your mask. That's the theory.

Still, always be careful regardless. But I think we're finally on the right track here.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on April 07, 2020, 11:49:29 AM
Why? Because the models were largely based on bull*censored*:

No, the model is just extremely simplistic.  It was using the only data we had of going from start to taper off of the COVID-19 epidemic - Wuhan, and assumed that other locations would have similar results - a period of growth, followed by lockdown, followed by a taper off.

This isn't a bad baseline assumption.  Of course neither Wuhan, nor the US have had enough testing to get an accurate knowledge of how many true cases there are, nor how various variables of the population impact progression of the disease.  Which results in large error bars.  As more data is gathered, better predictions can be made.  Also there are tricks we learned between Wuhan and now that cut the death rate in half (putting patients on their stomachs, among others).

Also California, Washington, and Oregon basically ended up with the same trajectory as the Taiwan etc - the tech companies in those states acted early, which forced the states to act thus they didn't turn into Italy.  Florida, Lousiana, and many other states are probably going to have major problems.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 07, 2020, 11:56:23 AM
Why? Because the models were largely based on bull*censored*:

No, the model is just extremely simplistic. 

Yeah, in other words, it was bull*censored*.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 07, 2020, 12:17:14 PM
Why? Because the models were largely based on bull*censored*:

No, the model is just extremely simplistic. 

Yeah, in other words, it was bull*censored*.

It looks like NYC even though they were late for the shut down had an effective one. The NY shutdown started a little over 2 weeks ago. They are now seeing hospitalizations and new cases flatten and even have shown some declines. If the current trend continues NY is going to have a sharper drop than Wuhan or Italy had.

Also NYC and Italy flaring up in mid march got a bunch of other states and localities to shut down early before a big cluster could emerge. My county (population around 1 million people) basically shut down after our first 5 confirmed cases. Even with that we're up to 300 cases but the growth over the past 2 weeks has been linear, about 20 new cases per day. So it looks like we aren't going to overwhelm the health care system and the number of deaths will be much lower than it could have been. A week delay in the shut down could have been really bad, the first week of the shutdown an elementary school teacher tested positive. We avoided mass spread through the schools and other public spaces by shutting down quickly.

As Letterrip has pointed out the model is simple and assumes similar things are going to happen here as happened elsewhere. The numbers are getting better because a large part of the country shut down prior to getting confirmation of the first 100 or 1,000 cases in their area which prevents tens or hundreds of thousands of cases.   
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: NobleHunter on April 07, 2020, 12:55:30 PM
There's going to be a lot of crunchy science coming out of this, that's for sure. There's such a diversity of effectiveness that it's going to be a lot of work sorting out what exactly worked and why.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: wmLambert on April 07, 2020, 05:19:42 PM
There's going to be a lot of crunchy science coming out of this, that's for sure. There's such a diversity of effectiveness that it's going to be a lot of work sorting out what exactly worked and why.

Not necessarily. If more than one treatment works, that is all to the good, because people are different and respond differently to various scripts. Expensive drugs still work sometimes when generics don't.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 07, 2020, 07:12:16 PM
CDC is projecting the lowest seasonal hospitalizations in their history:

"The number of hospitalizations estimated so far this season is lower than end-of-season total hospitalization estimates for any season since CDC began making these estimates."

This may be overly simplistic, but it seems entirely reasonable to suspect that those who might otherwise be hospitalized from flu are instead being hospitalized with COVID.

If this is true, it would need to be factored into the overall COVID hospitalizations, and would potentially lower the overall hospitalization demand stats even more.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: LetterRip on April 07, 2020, 08:18:23 PM
CDC is projecting the lowest seasonal hospitalizations in their history:

"The number of hospitalizations estimated so far this season is lower than end-of-season total hospitalization estimates for any season since CDC began making these estimates."

I don't think it means what you think it means - if you look at the graph - there are 6 years since 2010 that have had lower or similar seasonal flu burder to 2019/2020 current estimate.

Or look at this table.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html

The actual number of flu associated hospitalization already for this year, exceed the year end totals for many years of the past decade.  So I'm not sure what they are trying to say.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDrake on April 07, 2020, 08:57:29 PM
Likely. If covid kills you, you aren't around to get influenza. Or maybe they are more likely to send people with flu home to make space for covid patients. Or the vaccine choices were better than average. Or more people might have got vaccinated.

What prompted your theory? I don't think it is totally unreasonable, but I'm curious.

The problem with looking at hospitalization rates in raw numbers is that it also doesn't factor in general population growth over time.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: NobleHunter on April 07, 2020, 09:53:48 PM
Not necessarily. If more than one treatment works, that is all to the good, because people are different and respond differently to various scripts. Expensive drugs still work sometimes when generics don't.

I meant in the attempts to control the spread. If an effective treatment is found, the science will be much less interesting.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 07, 2020, 10:39:12 PM
I have no idea whether flu stats are better or worse for this season than for previous seasons, but it is obvious that social distancing triggered by COVID-19 fears will have a similar effect on seasonal flu numbers.  People self isolating are not catching or transmitting influenza, either.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: TheDeamon on April 07, 2020, 11:33:32 PM
Likely. If covid kills you, you aren't around to get influenza. Or maybe they are more likely to send people with flu home to make space for covid patients. Or the vaccine choices were better than average. Or more people might have got vaccinated.

What prompted your theory? I don't think it is totally unreasonable, but I'm curious.

The problem with looking at hospitalization rates in raw numbers is that it also doesn't factor in general population growth over time.

The other factor in all of this is Covid19 is more contagious than the flu, and social distancing and quarantine efforts to curtail Covid19 are going to be more effective against the flu than it will be against Covid19.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 08, 2020, 12:50:25 AM
What prompted your theory? I don't think it is totally unreasonable, but I'm curious.

Honestly I think at this point my reflex is one of looking for evidence of a general overreaction to this thing, and any data that might support that. This probably stems from a combination of manipulative/inaccurate media coupled with my own inherent bias and optimism, valid or not.

So I’m drawn to evidence that potentially supports exaggeration and I’m probably a bit resistant to evidence supporting the opposite.  My intention is to be objective but I am certain that I am not.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: ScottF on April 08, 2020, 01:14:23 AM
Case in point, Dr. Birx has confirmed that anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies is counted as a COVID death. Clearly that’s a problematic and potentially deceptive approach - but it does keep the stats up (and the desired corresponding behavior) so I guess it’s ok? 

Have a heart attack and test positive for Corona? Another Corona death.  I don’t even know if those misrepresentations are statistically relevant, but the very idea of that kind of sloppy wholesale counting makes me question motivations.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 08, 2020, 03:04:51 AM
Quote
Case in point, Dr. Birx has confirmed that anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies is counted as a COVID death. Clearly that’s a problematic and potentially deceptive approach - but it does keep the stats up (and the desired corresponding behavior) so I guess it’s ok?

Except that there's also the opposite problem: you don't seem to be testing everyone who dies for the coronavirus, even if they exhibited related symptoms that may have caused their deaths. ( https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/05/us/coronavirus-deaths-undercount.html )

So I find it quite likely many people will die of the coronavirus, and yet never be counted as coronavirus deaths.

Again I'd like to note that Trump is the one who showed a particular interest in artificially keeping the numbers down (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2020/mar/07/i-like-the-numbers-being-where-they-are-trump-video) "I don’t need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn’t our fault"

so what I'm actually expecting from the Trump administration is a pressure to underreport the coronavirus deaths.

But you know, it keeps the stats down, so I guess that's okay then.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: DonaldD on April 08, 2020, 07:45:15 AM
Quote
Honestly I think at this point my reflex is one of looking for evidence of a general overreaction
"At this point"?  That's been your position from the very beginning, and consistently throughout ...
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 08, 2020, 08:18:59 AM
As Letterrip has pointed out the model is simple and assumes similar things are going to happen here as happened elsewhere. The numbers are getting better because a large part of the country shut down prior to getting confirmation of the first 100 or 1,000 cases in their area which prevents tens or hundreds of thousands of cases.

Alright. Here we go.

Either the models were utter bull*censored* OR they were perfectly reasonable as you keep insisting and Trump has saved over 2 million lives.

Since you guys insist the models were valid, we can now say the guidance by Trump and his steady leadership saved more loves than any other president ever has before.

Before this is over, I suspect you’ll all reverse course and suddenly think the models were bull*censored*.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 08, 2020, 09:06:01 AM
As Letterrip has pointed out the model is simple and assumes similar things are going to happen here as happened elsewhere. The numbers are getting better because a large part of the country shut down prior to getting confirmation of the first 100 or 1,000 cases in their area which prevents tens or hundreds of thousands of cases.

Alright. Here we go.

Either the models were utter bull*censored* OR they were perfectly reasonable as you keep insisting and Trump has saved over 2 million lives.

Since you guys insist the models were valid, we can now say the guidance by Trump and his steady leadership saved more loves than any other president ever has before.

Before this is over, I suspect you’ll all reverse course and suddenly think the models were bull*censored*.

Trump or the governors who shut things down while Trump was still downplaying the disease?

But both Letterrip and I have criticized aspects of the IHME model. It's too simple in many ways but not completely divorced from reality. But their national numbers are off because many regions of the country shut down prior to epidemic levels of spread of the virus. Their numbers for NY tracked pretty closely through now. I'm guessing Florida will track along their numbers for a while too. But other states that shut down when NY did are tracking well below predicted because they isolated prior to there being an outbreak and big spike which is what the IHME model is based off of (Wuhan and Italy).

I can say the county's actions saved 2 million lives without crediting Trump for much of anything.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: Crunch on April 08, 2020, 09:18:21 AM
I can say the county's actions saved 2 million lives without crediting Trump for much of anything.

Orange Man Bad!  Truly amazing.
Title: Re: coronavirus
Post by: yossarian22c on April 08, 2020, 09:30:28 AM
I can say the county's actions saved 2 million lives without crediting Trump for much of anything.

Orange Man Bad!  Truly amazing.

Maybe you could detail how Trump's actions have limited the spread of the disease in the US? Have we done better at control than any other country? Maybe we're ahead of Italy and Spain? Has Trump directed the federal go